<div dir="auto"><div>Dear PDWG,</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Hope this email finds you in good health!<br><br><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Le dim. 27 juin 2021 1:50 AM, Owen DeLong via RPD <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net">rpd@afrinic.net</a>> a écrit :</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space"><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Jun 26, 2021, at 06:33 , Fernando Frediani <<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><div>
<div><p>[...]</p></div></div></blockquote></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div><p>
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></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Hi Owen,</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Thanks for your email, brother!</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">...i found your clarification useful, in particular the third one, aka 'not so simple'</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space"><div><br></div><div>1.<span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>(simple) An organization whose operations are entirely within one RIR’s service region.</div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </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></div><div>2.<span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </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 style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </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></div><div>3.<span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </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 style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>infrastructure.</div><div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">...it sounds as this interesting usecase </div><div dir="auto">requires a *global* policy [1]...i don't </div><div dir="auto">figure well a *regional* RIR fit to offer </div><div dir="auto">that kind of *global* service...i might be wrong </div><div dir="auto">though :-/ but still open to learn, fortunately.</div><div dir="auto">__</div><div dir="auto">[1]: <<a href="https://nro.net/policy/global">https://nro.net/policy/global</a>></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space"><div><br></div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </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 style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>network space to number its infrastructure in each applicable region.</div><div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">...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? </div><div dir="auto">__</div><div dir="auto">[2]: <<a href="https://nro.net/about/rirs/the-internet-registry-system">https://nro.net/about/rirs/the-internet-registry-system</a>></div><div dir="auto">[3]: <<a href="https://nro.net/about/nro-faq#6">https://nro.net/about/nro-faq#6</a>></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space"><div><br></div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </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 style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>fragmentation of the address</div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">...that evolving Internet Numbers Registry </div><div dir="auto">System is well described here:</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><<a href="https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7020">https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7020</a>></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space"><div> space. It means that such a company needs to become familiar with and keep up on the policies and procedures</div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </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></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">...imho, this needs an IAR, first, to confirm </div><div dir="auto">your says...each *regional* RIR is tasked </div><div dir="auto">to serve its geographic service region, with </div><div dir="auto">a useful coordination/collaboration through </div><div dir="auto">The NRO, to maintain a *common* Internet </div><div dir="auto">Numbers Registry System.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Isn't it why some of those *regional* RIRs have an *inter-RIR transfer policy* ? :-/</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">...finally, why not also questioning the rational of an Inter-RIR transfer policy?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space"><div><br></div><div>4.<span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </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 style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>such a company should not be obtaining resources from any RIR where this is the case.</div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div><p>- 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></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. </div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">...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)?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space"><div>The customer is still paying a fee to use addresses you delegate to them.</div><div><br></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"><div><div><p>
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></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></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">...inter/intra RIR transfer matters?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space"><div><div><br></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></div><div>LIRs lease addresses to their customers… It’s what LIRs do. Most LIRs do this with an associated connectivity contract.</div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">...is it true AfriNIC CEO? could you please confirm?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">If true, it deserves at least a *random* </div><div dir="auto">review of a quarter (~500) of the number </div><div dir="auto">of resource members.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space"><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div><p>
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></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></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">...if ownering registrations really makes sense :-/</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">You sign the RSA and pay for the service, not </div><div dir="auto">for number resources...</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space"><div><div><br></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. </div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">...imho, we can say that:</div><div dir="auto">the Internet Numbers Registry System </div><div dir="auto">works quite well, with a coordination via </div><div dir="auto">the NRO.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space"><div><div>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 <a href="http://5.0.0.0/8" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">5.0.0.0/8</a> 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"><div><div><p>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></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></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">...sure, it meets the RSA and the CPM in </div><div dir="auto">AfriNIC service region. But if you feel as </div><div dir="auto">they charge you too much (say $30), for </div><div dir="auto">a single IP address, then you are free to </div><div dir="auto">go to AfriNIC, who could start a review.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space"><div><br></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></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"><p>[...]</p></blockquote></div><div>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></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Leasing is a word which can be used in place of saying that a RIR is allocating Internet number resources to a LIR...</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">...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...</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">...to protect the global routing system, </div><div dir="auto">maybe it's important to diminish IP </div><div dir="auto">broker businesses :-/</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Shalom, </div><div dir="auto">--sb.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space"><div><br></div><div>Owen</div><div><br></div></div>[...]
</blockquote></div></div></div>