<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>In the recent times as IPv4 exhaustion advances it's becoming
more and more common to see defenses for a total liberalization in
a "no rules scenario" of IP space regulation using nice words as
"new economic, technical, and legal realities".</p>
<p>The reality is that that most benefited from that are only a few
companies who financially benefit during these difficult times,
regardless of things like fairness and economic and social
development of a region. These actors know the value of this
market will have its peak and then will start to come back down,
so it is somehow understandable the pressure we have been seen to
try to make some absurds like IP leasing to non-connectivity
customers or use out of the region as something "normal and
acceptable".</p>
<p>It is not by chance that some RIRs Community have chosen that
majority of addresses must be used within in the region and the
impacts it has on the social and economics of that region. It is a
loss when every new company or entrepreneurship struggles to
launch a new business due to the lack of addresses in the region
that were taken way to be used elsewhere and these type of
situations cannot simply be taken as "new economic, technical, and
legal realities". In those scenarios where only a few actors earn
their chunk of money regardless the losses to the region such
movements can't be accept as something natural.<br>
</p>
<p>It was probably in the line of "new economic, technical, and
legal realities" the some RIRs didn't choose to have soft landing
phases which certainly leads to a significant unfairness to
newcomers and new business coming up and also to a higher market
concentration. Fortunately for the less economic-developed regions
in the world (LACNIC and AfriNic) this didn't happen and this
discourse of "new economic, technical, and legal realities" was
not predominant.<br>
</p>
<p>During the first discussions of Inter-RIR transfer policy, while
AfriNic was still on Phase 1 of the soft landing we could see a
big concern of several people about possibility of IP space be
simply stolen from Africa and I believe that is still a concern of
many and I doubt that these many would find it normal things like
out of region usage or IP leasing.</p>
<p>Regards<br>
Fernando<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 26/06/2021 21:49, Owen DeLong wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:0DE08D0A-EB4F-42FC-97D9-DEE405200AE6@delong.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<br class="">
<div><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Jun 26, 2021, at 06:33 , Fernando Frediani
<<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com" class=""
moz-do-not-send="true">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8" class="">
<div class="">
<p class="">I get shocked every time I see people trying
to make it normal things like IP Leasing or usage of
resources out of the region, as it it was something from
the day by day. The only thing I can think of this is
because that may be interesting financially to them
despite it goes in the totally wrong direction of how IP
space has always been treated and should keep be, always
remembering it is not something the belong to any
organization but is in custody of.</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
You are simply completely and totally wrong about this.</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>RIRs were intended to provide timezone/language convenience
and to allow for policies to vary according to regionally unique
needs/culture/etc. They were never intended to limit the freedom
for a member/resource holder to use the addresses on any host or
for any customer they served.</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>Show me a single LIR that does not lease addresses (or at
least address registrations)? If you want static addresses from
comcast Business, they charge you $15/month for a block of 5. If
that’s not a lease, please explain what it is.</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>It may be that your lease price is built into your IP
service, but you’re still paying $X/time to get addresses from
them.</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>If that’s not day-to-day normal since time immemorial, even
going back to the days of NSFNET Regionals, then every ISP I’ve
ever worked with or for is in the “not day to day normal”
category.</div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<p class=""> </p>
<p class="">- What is the point to allow resources issued
by a certain RIR to be used elsewhere in the world and
not in the region where they were originally issued by
IANA ? If it was the case then we don't need RIRs with
their own pools and rules, just have a global pool which
would certainly be unfair to certain regions that have
different different needs and evolve in different
speeds.<br class="">
</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br class="">
</div>
The point is that a company in Sydney, AU may have world wide
operations that they want to number from a single contiguous
block of IP addresses. There’s no reason they shouldn’t be able
to get numbers from APNIC in a manner convenient to their
headquarters and use those addresses throughout their network,
even if their network is not entirely contained in the APNIC
service region.</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>Further, four out of five RIRs now support bidirectional
inter-regional address transfers, so the “originally issued by
IANA” idea is an anachronism at best.</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>Heck, even with the advent of ERX, the idea of addresses
staying where they were originally issued by IANA is
questionable and ERX was a long time ago (at least 10, if not 20
years ago, I can’t recall the exact start/end years).</div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<p class=""> 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.</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
There are four principle possibilities in my view:</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>1.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>(simple) An
organization whose operations are entirely within one RIR’s
service region.</div>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>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.</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>2.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>(simple)
An organization whose operations are almost entirely within one
RIR’s service region, but which has supporting connectivity in
other regions.</div>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>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.</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>3.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>(not
so simple) An organization which has multiple headquarters in
multiple countries around the world and which has a significant
global network</div>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>infrastructure.</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>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</div>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>network
space to number its infrastructure in each applicable region.</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>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</div>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>fragmentation
of the address space. It means that such a company needs to
become familiar with and keep up on the policies and procedures</div>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>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.</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>4.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>(simple)
An organization which has no operations, facilities, legal
nexus, or infrastructure in a particular RIR region. I think we
all agree that</div>
<div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>such
a company should not be obtaining resources from any RIR where
this is the case.</div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<p class="">- 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 !<br class="">
</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
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. The customer is
still paying a fee to use addresses you delegate to them.</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>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?</div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<p class=""> 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 !<br class="">
</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>How about “I need extra IP space to provide to my customers
as an ISP within the rules of the RIR.”</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>If that’s not absurd, then again, you are overloading the
term leasing with a lot of constraints that it doesn’t
actually include.</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>LIRs lease addresses to their customers… It’s what LIRs do.
Most LIRs do this with an associated connectivity contract.</div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<p class=""> 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.<br class="">
</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>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. 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 5.0.0.0/8 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.</div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<p class="">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.</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
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.</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>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</div>
<div>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</div>
<div>cost as you describe, the other much larger charge on the
bill for your connectivity services covers that.</div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<p class="">I invite those who still struggle to
understand these points to make an effort and not make
absurd points like this look normal and acceptable.</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
I invite you to take another look at the economic, technical,
and legal realities of the situation you are mischaracterizing
here and reconsider your position.</div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<p class="">Just a final note about transfer process which
involves a payment to the source organization in this
case I don't see as an issue because at least the
receiving organization will have to justify the need to
the RIR, so at least community is ensured those
transferred resources will in fact be used by someone
who really need and justify them. So if one has space
which is not use anymore and believe they will never be
necessary in the future just transfer them to another
organization and transfer policies will do what they
were thought to do.</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
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.</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>Owen</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<br class="">
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>