Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[rpd] [Community-Discuss] Unaddressed queries by AFRINIC during AGMM

Sylvain Baya abscoco at
Mon Jun 28 18:08:43 UTC 2021

Dear PDWG,

Hope this email finds you in good health!

Le dim. 27 juin 2021 1:50 AM, Owen DeLong via RPD <rpd at> a
écrit :

> On Jun 26, 2021, at 06:33 , Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at>

> wrote:


> [...]


> It is understandable certain specific usages like anycast or small

> portions of IP space outside the region in order to support the operations

> in the region, but not simply an organization come here, estabilish an

> legal local company request IP addresses and go to use them elsewhere in

> the world.


> There are four principle possibilities in my view:


Hi Owen,

Thanks for your email, brother!

...i found your clarification useful, in particular the third one, aka 'not
so simple'

> 1. (simple) An organization whose operations are entirely within one

> RIR’s service region.

> In this case, said ORG should obviously get their addresses from that RIR

> and there is no issue. I believe you and I are in agreement on this case.


> 2. (simple) An organization whose operations are almost entirely within

> one RIR’s service region, but which has supporting connectivity in other

> regions.

> You’ve already stated above that you support out-of-region use for this

> case and so we agree here. This is essentially case 1 with some fudge

> factor.


> 3. (not so simple) An organization which has multiple headquarters in

> multiple countries around the world and which has a significant global

> network

> infrastructure.

> sounds as this interesting usecase
requires a *global* policy [1]...i don't
figure well a *regional* RIR fit to offer
that kind of *global* service...i might be wrong
though :-/ but still open to learn, fortunately.
[1]: <>

> You seem to think that such a company should be forced to deal with the

> RIR in each and every region in which it operates and get discontiguous

> network space to number its infrastructure in each applicable region.


...not responding for *our* brother, but imho there are many other
possibilities; including proposing a global policy [1]. Why all the
proponents of those changes in how the RIR system [2] works, should not
simply start the existing process [3] in *transparently* submitting a
global DPP?
[2]: <>
[3]: <>

> I think this is not the intent of the RIR system, was never the intent of

> the RIR system, and is not good for the internet. It creates an unnecessary

> fragmentation of the address


...that evolving Internet Numbers Registry
System is well described here:


space. It means that such a company needs to become familiar with and keep

> up on the policies and procedures

> in 5 RIRs instead of just 1. It increases the burden on both the RIR

> system and the company in question with absolutely no benefit whatsoever.


...imho, this needs an IAR, first, to confirm
your says...each *regional* RIR is tasked
to serve its geographic service region, with
a useful coordination/collaboration through
The NRO, to maintain a *common* Internet
Numbers Registry System.

Isn't it why some of those *regional* RIRs have an *inter-RIR transfer
policy* ? :-/

...finally, why not also questioning the rational of an Inter-RIR transfer

> 4. (simple) An organization which has no operations, facilities, legal

> nexus, or infrastructure in a particular RIR region. I think we all agree

> that

> such a company should not be obtaining resources from any RIR where this

> is the case.


> - Leasing is another absurd that I really fail to understand how people

> consider it normal. Just think for a minute: when a organization request IP

> space from the RIR it is for its own usage and for its customers usages

> which it provides connectivity and don't have the possibility to hold their

> own IP space. It is pretty obvious !


> When you lease an address to a customer, it is for the customer to use.

> Whether there is connectivity associated with said lease or not, the

> reality is that it is still a lease.


...are you considering that in every *regional* RIR, there is a same rule
which is that a resource member *must* be RIR's policy-compliant (CPM)?

The customer is still paying a fee to use addresses you delegate to them.


> So really, your objection isn’t to all leasing, you are merely objecting

> to the case where the lease is not tied to a contract for connectivity

> services?


> Does it make any sense to justify to the RIR: "I need this extra IP space

> in order to lease them to other ASNs which according to the rules of the

> their RIR, cannot request anymore". Just look how absurd this can be !


> How about “I need extra IP space to provide to my customers as an ISP

> within the rules of the RIR.”


...inter/intra RIR transfer matters?

> If that’s not absurd, then again, you are overloading the term leasing

> with a lot of constraints that it doesn’t actually include.


> LIRs lease addresses to their customers… It’s what LIRs do. Most LIRs do

> this with an associated connectivity contract.

> it true AfriNIC CEO? could you please confirm?

If true, it deserves at least a *random*
review of a quarter (~500) of the number
of resource members.

And works the same for organization who already have IP space issued. If it

> is leasing part of it to some other organization then it is crystal clear

> that part of those addresses which have been justified in the past are not

> needed anymore by that organization and should be returned as they don't

> justify for them anymore. It might sound 'cruel' to those who are doing

> that but it is the obvious. Rules can't allow organizations to create

> 'address estates' with something they don't own.


> You may not own the addresses, but you do own your registration of those

> addresses so long as you have paid the relevant fees and meet the terms of

> the RSA for that registration.


...if ownering registrations really makes sense :-/

You sign the RSA and pay for the service, not
for number resources...

> In reality, ownership of integers is an absurd concept to begin with, but

> so is a contract for exclusive use of an integer. How can IANA preclude

> anyone from using 5.


...imho, we can say that:
the Internet Numbers Registry System
works quite well, with a coordination via
the NRO.

I guarantee you that there are billions of uses of the number 5 all over

> the world that have nothing to do with RIPE or any of the entities they

> have allocated portions of it to. Further, since RIRs don’t have the power

> of a government, the reality is that any sort of “exclusive use” of a

> number on the internet that they claim to grant is strictly by the consent

> and cooperation of the people who run actual routers. The Internet has no

> central governing authority. Each network operator makes their own

> decisions about what routes and packets to accept, what to forward, etc. So

> if an operator chooses to treat a customer as if they are the rightful user

> of and route traffic to them, about the only real recourse is

> to stop listening to some or all of their route announcements and/or

> de-peer them. There might be a civil case for tortious interference, but

> that gets into complex areas of the law and IANAL, so I won’t speculate

> beyond that.


> And by the way: when a LIR assigns IP addresses to their connectivity

> customers this is NOT a lease but an administrative fee to cover costs to

> keep all infrastructure necessary to have those IPs up and running,

> including the same very administrative fee that is paid to the RIR for the

> same proposes.


> That's like saying that when you tip the Host at a restaurant to get a

> better table, it’s not a bribe, but a tip. Yeah, sure.


> Regardless of your sophistry about the terminology, it’s a periodic fee

> paid in order to retain the registration of a set of addresses in your

> favor. Call it a log cabin, a duck, or a rose, it’s still a form of a lease.


...sure, it meets the RSA and the CPM in
AfriNIC service region. But if you feel as
they charge you too much (say $30), for
a single IP address, then you are free to
go to AfriNIC, who could start a review.

> In cases where you pay a single fee to an ISP and the addresses are

> included, yes, part of what you pay is the lease of the address

> registrations themselves and part of it is the cost of the connectivity,

> etc.


> However, in many cases (and more and more common these days) ISPs are

> charging separate fees for any IPv4 addresses beyond a particular base

> amount. Comcast Business (one of the largest Cable

> MSOs and also one of the largest business fiber providers in the united

> states) for example charges $15/month for a bundle of 5 addresses.

> Certainly that charge isn’t covering any sort of infrastructure

> cost as you describe, the other much larger charge on the bill for your

> connectivity services covers that.


> [...]


> Any lease done within the constraints of RIR policy is done based on a

> justified need, whether or not connectivity is involved. If someone is

> leasing addresses they don’t need, then A) They are a fool paying rent on a

> useless thing, and B) that does not conform to the policies by which LIRs

> are allowed to provision space to their customers.


Leasing is a word which can be used in place of saying that a RIR is
allocating Internet number resources to a LIR...

...but the term is not used to express that normal behaviour to support the
growth within a region...maybe it’s because the use is controlled : a
resource member in good standing can not accept to *lease* (assign)
Internet number resources to an org which could easily destroy its whole
block's reputation...but a professional IP number resources broker, without
any deployed IP infrastructure, would surely think/act differently... protect the global routing system,
maybe it's important to diminish IP
broker businesses :-/


> Owen


> [...]

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list