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

[Frank Habicht]

Hi,

On 29/06/2021 12:01, Owen DeLong via RPD wrote:

>

> nectivity customers or use out of the region as something "normal and

> acceptable".

>

> Regardless of who does and does not benefit, the reality is that short

> of an actual government with the ability to enforce its rules using

> guns and prisons, people who can make a profit are going to do what

> they are going to do.


I need to break this down.
I'm working in my $dayjob for one of those companies that are after
$profit. What this company _did_ is subscribe to the methods and rules
of a Mauritius company called AfriNIC, in order to get Internet
Numbering Resources. And I think many of the AfriNIC members formally
subscribed to these rules. (And the rules are subject to change
according to PDP)

These INR are provided to members per need and justification. Relatively
recently additional rules came into force that limited each allocation
to maximum /22 - this is how rules can change.

INR are delegated to members that need them themselves, and AfriNIC
calls these members "End-User" members. They are also delegated to
members that provide internet access to respective customers, and
AfriNIC calls these members "LIR" members.

I believe in all justifications for IPv4, LIR members request/require
the addresses to address customers, or servers, or VMs that get
connectivity services from the LIR member. And there is no problem with
that. LIR is in the business of making profit, providing connectivity,
hosting servers, services, needs IPs, gets IPs.

There is a big difference to the case where an LIR member
- has IPv4 address space,
- is not using it themselves,
- not for connectivity (or hosting) customers
and has the IPv4 space used by "customers" that are only getting the
IPv4 space as a service - sold or leased.

Is that the purpose for which the IPv4 space was obtained and justified?

There are "rules" that say an LIR should notify when use of an IP block
changes.
I see a big difference between changes *within an LIR* and changes to
*use the IP space outside the AfriNIC member LIR*.
With the first, I consider it generally accepted that justification remains.
With the latter, I believe that the *LIR that subscribed to AfriNIC
rules* has shown to no longer have the justification for these IPs for
connectivity and hosting, including "PA" customers.

The reason for doing the latter is obviously $profit, and yes - some "
are going to do what they are going to do ".
And what this community allows them to get away with.

To be Frank: I simply don't believe that
AS212552    "BitCommand" in Armenia gets IP connectivity services from
... you know who.

In other continents / RIRs the IPv4 space is finished. Noone has any
hope of justifying any with the RIR. Some have more than they need -
give or sell it to others that have "a need" and the market can probably
regulate that.

But AfriNIC still has and is distributing IPv4 - should it do so by
"whoever pays most" or "everyone according to their need [upto a /22
;-)]". Has it given IPv4 resources to members according to their
respective (perceived) needs???

Wasn't one of the rules that the LIR was to use the IPs for the
connectivity (or hosting) services? 

Are the rules still applicable?


bit more below...


> I’m not particularly happy about this reality, but I do recognize that

> it is, in fact, reality and I’m not in favor of giving RIRs guns or

> the ability to incarcerate people. Contracts only get you so far and

> clever people can always find ways to comply with the letter of a

> contract while circumventing the other party's intent if they want to

> try hard enough.

>

> So no, these are not “nice words”, they are the recognition of

> unpleasant and inconvenient truths that like it or not, we are faced

> with new realities, economic, technical, and legal.


Is one of these realities that an LIR got resources from AfriNIC for
providing connectivity (or hosting) services, and now these are no
longer in place?



>

> In many countries legal frameworks the lack of a transfer policy

> allowing registrants to monetize the transfer of their registrations

> could be considered either restraint of trade or an

> anti-trust/anti-competitive matter.


the fact is that these numbers should be unique and centrally managed.
These anti-trust lawyers can send a better proposal for managing them.

The question is whether "according to need" or "according to whoever
offers more $$".

Should I be allowed to "buy" a /16 from AfriNIC, put it in a safe, sell
it 3 years later for $profit ???
Is that the purpose for which AfriNIC got the /8's from IANA?


Frank

PS: all or most questions are serious. answers will help.