<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Perhaps you may not be used with the way numbering resources are
allocated and must be used. This is not a simple internal network
usage thing that any company can decide at will.<br>
Anyone holding these resources MUST use them in according to the
current rules and MUST justify and *keep justifying that usage*
permanently in order to be able to keep holding those resources -
which by the way is not something the belongs to the organization.</p>
<p>Bizarre is to get resources form the RIR, not use them for what
they have been justified originally and bypass that justification
giving them to allow someone to bypass the current rules of a RIR.<br>
If any organization is holding resources which it doesn't justify
anymore it either gives it back to AfriNic or transfer to another
organization who have usage and justify for that.<br>
IP Leasing is a clear way to show the RIR and Community that
resource holder doesn't justify to keep that IP space to anymore.<br>
</p>
<p>Fernando<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 02/07/2021 15:45, Mimi dy wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAAtVZRf1=e=9tJ+2=oDT8eY2Zyzzs=2HORkpxJUftH9PzMTCoA@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">Hi Fernando,<span
class="gmail-Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>
<br>
I am wondering what basis do you use to define “a wrong option”?
And who gave you, or me or the community the right to determine
how networks are used? Does the CPM entitle us the right to tell
a certain company; “you have the option to use Inter RIR
transfer policy”? I may have missed that, but please point out
to me where the CPM gives us the right to intervene with others
and their networks just because we do not like it.<br>
<div>That is just bizarre. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best,</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Le ven. 2 juil. 2021 à 18:39,
Fernando Frediani <<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>> a
écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>So they are relying on a wrong option which should never
have relied. <br>
If they have needs for IPv4 (as everybody else) and they
cannot get these addresses directly from the RIR as per
the current rules which apply equally to everybody they
have the option to use Inter-RIR transfer policy available
on all other RIRs.<br>
<br>
If these organizations are from outside Africa region then
it is even worst they grab unused addressed that were
assigned to a local company to use somewhere else out of
the region.</p>
<p>Not everything that is useful or convenient to some is
correct and as such should e stimulated and IP leasing
mean the current holder doesn't justify for those
addresses anymore, so either it gives it back to AfriNic
or transfer them definitely.</p>
<p>Regards<br>
Fernando<br>
</p>
<div>On 02/07/2021 14:29, Mimi dy wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">Hello Fernando, </div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Many organizations rely on IP Leasing in order to
acquire number resources quickly and affordably to
meet their current and future needs. It is totally
legit, especially during the IPv4 exhaustion phase,
where resource scarcity represents a real issue for
ISPs and network-holders in AFRINIC's service area.</div>
<div>I find it absurd that you are arguing against IP
leasing when it is a legal and accurate way to
obtain IPs. Indeed, there are some malicious
organizations out there misusing leased IPs, but
that is certainly not the case for everyone, so no
need to generalize. Consequently, you cannot really
dismiss IP leasing using weak arguments as such. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Since IP leasing is very helpful to numerous
entities in the period of shortage of available IP
addresses, and is certainly legal, I fail to
understand why you are advocating against it. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best,</div>
<div><span
style="font-size:16px;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Gotham,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"></span></div>
<div><span
style="font-size:16px;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Gotham,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><br>
</span></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><span
style="font-size:16px;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Gotham,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span
style="font-size:16px;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Gotham,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><br>
</span></div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Le ven. 2 juil. 2021
à 16:48, Fernando Frediani <<a
href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>>
a écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px
0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Well,
like it or not but having a customer that is in the
leasing <br>
business may effectively change our opinion about
some subject, even if <br>
personally you wish it may not to.<br>
<br>
Trying to find an exact 'ipsis literis' word in the
CPM that fulfill or <br>
not your expectations may not always work. There is
always room for some <br>
interpretation and staff is the one responsible to
do that in this context.<br>
For the absurd leasing possibility is very simple:
if leasing proposes <br>
cannot be used as a justification to receive a new
block from the RIR <br>
why would it be after you receive it and missuse it
for different <br>
proposes other than bring connectivity to your
customers. In that sense <br>
I really hope staff stand strong in revoking
resources that are being <br>
used for leasing proposes, different from what they
have been justified <br>
originally and if necessary fight in courts of
Mauritius to have that <br>
decision preserved.<br>
<br>
For out of the region usage there have been multiple
people who showed <br>
that is not currently permitted. Maybe you don't
agree with that but <br>
bottom line is that is what staff has been
interpreting from the current <br>
rules backed by what some of us have put here based
in previous messages.<br>
<br>
Want to use AfriNic resources in a different region
? Simply transfer <br>
them permanently using the soon-to-come Inter-RIR
transfer policy and <br>
bound to the rules of the new RIR.<br>
<br>
Regards<br>
Fernando<br>
<br>
On 02/07/2021 04:46, Owen DeLong via RPD wrote:<br>
> Full disclosure: I don’t personally have a dog
in this fight. I am personally<br>
> agnostic as to whether leasing should or should
not be permitted in a<br>
> newly developed policy.<br>
><br>
> I do have a client that I consult for which is
in the leasing business. It is my<br>
> opinion that their leasing business is 100%
compliant with policy as it is<br>
> written and that if the community doesn’t like
that fact, the community can<br>
> and should certainly amend the policy to
rectify the situation.<br>
><br>
>> On Jun 29, 2021, at 03:08 , Frank Habicht
<<a href="mailto:geier@geier.ne.tz"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">geier@geier.ne.tz</a>>
wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Hi,<br>
>><br>
>> On 29/06/2021 12:01, Owen DeLong via RPD
wrote:<br>
>>> nectivity customers or use out of the
region as something "normal and<br>
>>> acceptable".<br>
>>><br>
>>> Regardless of who does and does not
benefit, the reality is that short<br>
>>> of an actual government with the
ability to enforce its rules using<br>
>>> guns and prisons, people who can make a
profit are going to do what<br>
>>> they are going to do.<br>
>> I need to break this down.<br>
>> I'm working in my $dayjob for one of those
companies that are after<br>
>> $profit. What this company _did_ is
subscribe to the methods and rules<br>
>> of a Mauritius company called AfriNIC, in
order to get Internet<br>
>> Numbering Resources. And I think many of
the AfriNIC members formally<br>
>> subscribed to these rules. (And the rules
are subject to change<br>
>> according to PDP)<br>
>><br>
>> These INR are provided to members per need
and justification. Relatively<br>
>> recently additional rules came into force
that limited each allocation<br>
>> to maximum /22 - this is how rules can
change.<br>
>><br>
>> INR are delegated to members that need them
themselves, and AfriNIC<br>
>> calls these members "End-User" members.
They are also delegated to<br>
>> members that provide internet access to
respective customers, and<br>
>> AfriNIC calls these members "LIR" members.<br>
> You are close, but the term used in the bylaws
is “open system protocol<br>
> network services”. I am not sure why such
awkward and broad language<br>
> was chosen, but that’s a much broader
definition than “internet access”.<br>
><br>
> In the CPM, LIR is defined as “An IR that
receives allocations from an RIR and primarily<br>
> assigns address space to 'end-users’. LIRs are
generally ISPs. Their customers are other<br>
> ISPs and possibly end-users. LIRs must be
members of AFRINIC.”<br>
><br>
> Again, there’s not a single word in that
definition that ties it to connectivity<br>
> services or internet access.<br>
><br>
>> I believe in all justifications for IPv4,
LIR members request/require<br>
>> the addresses to address customers, or
servers, or VMs that get<br>
>> connectivity services from the LIR member.
And there is no problem with<br>
>> that. LIR is in the business of making
profit, providing connectivity,<br>
>> hosting servers, services, needs IPs, gets
IPs.<br>
> Certainly this is the prevalent model, whether
or not it is 100% pervasive<br>
> I am not sure.<br>
><br>
>> There is a big difference to the case where
an LIR member<br>
>> - has IPv4 address space,<br>
>> - is not using it themselves,<br>
>> - not for connectivity (or hosting)
customers<br>
>> and has the IPv4 space used by "customers"
that are only getting the<br>
>> IPv4 space as a service - sold or leased.<br>
> Is there? So long as the customers in question
are justifying the space to the<br>
> same standards that an end-user applying to the
RIR would have to or to the<br>
> same standard that would be required if they
were also getting connectivity<br>
> from the LIR, then what exactly is the
difference?<br>
><br>
> What if the LIR in question did announce the
covering aggregates of space<br>
> they leased and provided some minimal
connectivity to the customer in question?<br>
> Now they meet the definition you’ve provided
above, but they’re not actually<br>
> moving packets because the more-specific being
announced to the customer’s<br>
> higher bandwidth providers will win vs. the
aggregate.<br>
><br>
> Does removing this connectivity fig leaf really
change the nature of the<br>
> assignment in a meaningful way?<br>
><br>
>> Is that the purpose for which the IPv4
space was obtained and justified?<br>
> Since I don’t have access to anyone’s IPv4
justifications to AFRINIC in a<br>
> manner which would allow me to comment
publicly, I’m going to skip this<br>
> question. Suffice it to say, I can imagine a
number of ways in which this<br>
> is possible.<br>
><br>
>> There are "rules" that say an LIR should
notify when use of an IP block<br>
>> changes.<br>
> Yes. The rules are, however, ambiguous at best
and it’s not clear at what<br>
> level of detail a “change” is constituted nor
is it clear whether an update<br>
> to whois is adequate notification in most
circumstances.<br>
><br>
>> I see a big difference between changes
*within an LIR* and changes to<br>
>> *use the IP space outside the AfriNIC
member LIR*.<br>
> So if I have space that was allocated to my LIR
and I assigned it to<br>
> customer A who is using the space in their
network (technically outside<br>
> of my LIR), but then they return the space when
they get their own<br>
> block and become a BYOA customer, my assigning
that space to customer<br>
> B for their use on their network (also outside
my LIR) becomes a problem<br>
> or change in the usage exactly why?<br>
><br>
>> With the first, I consider it generally
accepted that justification remains.<br>
>> With the latter, I believe that the *LIR
that subscribed to AfriNIC<br>
>> rules* has shown to no longer have the
justification for these IPs for<br>
>> connectivity and hosting, including "PA"
customers.<br>
> What if the justification in question was not
“connectivity and hosting”?<br>
><br>
> What if the justification was “Numbering hosts
on customer networks”?<br>
><br>
>> The reason for doing the latter is
obviously $profit, and yes - some "<br>
>> are going to do what they are going to do
".<br>
> The reason for the former was obviously profit,
too. Nobody is in business<br>
> to subsidize the benefits of others without
making a profit.<br>
><br>
>> And what this community allows them to get
away with.<br>
> It’s not so much a question of “get away with”
as “what the rules actually<br>
> say” from my perspective. You may wish to argue
that the intent or even<br>
> the clear intent of the community is something
else, but in reality, for rules to be<br>
> useful, one must consider what the rules
actually say, and not the current<br>
> popular interpretation of intent around the
rules.<br>
><br>
> Making it up as we go along has become somewhat
of an AFRINIC tradition<br>
> at this point, seemingly both in the staff
actions and in the board, PDWG,<br>
> community, and various committees.<br>
><br>
> There’s also a pretty strong history of doing
so being the source of a great<br>
> many problems, so I continue to hope that we
can learn from those mistakes<br>
> and start actually following the rules as they
are written and making the<br>
> changes necessary through the proper processes
when the rules do not<br>
> meet the perceived needs of the current
situation.<br>
><br>
>> To be Frank: I simply don't believe that<br>
>> AS212552 "BitCommand" in Armenia gets IP
connectivity services from<br>
>> ... you know who.<br>
> Honestly, I don’t know who, but it’s easy
enough to look up:<br>
><br>
> <a href="https://bgp.he.net/AS212552#_irr"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://bgp.he.net/AS212552#_irr</a><br>
><br>
> Says that they get apparent transit from
AS64515 and AS24940.<br>
><br>
> This seems to be borne out by <a
href="https://bgp.he.net/AS212552#_graph4"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://bgp.he.net/AS212552#_graph4</a><br>
><br>
>> In other continents / RIRs the IPv4 space
is finished. Noone has any<br>
>> hope of justifying any with the RIR. Some
have more than they need -<br>
>> give or sell it to others that have "a
need" and the market can probably<br>
>> regulate that.<br>
> ARIN is still issuing /24s under NRPM section
4.10, so that’s not entirely<br>
> correct.<br>
><br>
>> But AfriNIC still has and is distributing
IPv4 - should it do so by<br>
>> "whoever pays most" or "everyone according
to their need [upto a /22<br>
>> ;-)]". Has it given IPv4 resources to
members according to their<br>
>> respective (perceived) needs???<br>
>><br>
>> Wasn't one of the rules that the LIR was to
use the IPs for the<br>
>> connectivity (or hosting) services?<br>
> I’ve reviewed the bylaws, the RSA, and the CPM
pretty carefully. I couldn’t<br>
> find a connectivity requirement other than one
that calls for the numbers<br>
> to be “routed on the internet” (which, btw, is
a unique requirement in<br>
> AFRINIC not present in other RIRs).<br>
><br>
>> Are the rules still applicable?<br>
> The rules still apply as written, but that’s
the real sticking point. Do we<br>
> want to focus on the common perception of what
we think the rules<br>
> say (as you have done above) or do we want to
review the rules as<br>
> they are written and call for the enforcement
of those rules according<br>
> to a plain text interpretation of their actual
content?<br>
><br>
>> bit more below...<br>
>><br>
>>> I’m not particularly happy about this
reality, but I do recognize that<br>
>>> it is, in fact, reality and I’m not in
favor of giving RIRs guns or<br>
>>> the ability to incarcerate people.
Contracts only get you so far and<br>
>>> clever people can always find ways to
comply with the letter of a<br>
>>> contract while circumventing the other
party's intent if they want to<br>
>>> try hard enough.<br>
>>><br>
>>> So no, these are not “nice words”, they
are the recognition of<br>
>>> unpleasant and inconvenient truths that
like it or not, we are faced<br>
>>> with new realities, economic,
technical, and legal.<br>
>> Is one of these realities that an LIR got
resources from AfriNIC for<br>
>> providing connectivity (or hosting)
services, and now these are no<br>
>> longer in place?<br>
> I have no knowledge of such a situation, but in
truth I have not read<br>
> the original justification for the space issued
to the LIR I think you<br>
> are referring to.<br>
><br>
>>> In many countries legal frameworks the
lack of a transfer policy<br>
>>> allowing registrants to monetize the
transfer of their registrations<br>
>>> could be considered either restraint of
trade or an<br>
>>> anti-trust/anti-competitive matter.<br>
>> the fact is that these numbers should be
unique and centrally managed.<br>
>> These anti-trust lawyers can send a better
proposal for managing them.<br>
> The ability to sell one’s registration to
another does not in any way impinge<br>
> the central management of numbers for
uniqueness.<br>
><br>
>> The question is whether "according to need"
or "according to whoever<br>
>> offers more $$".<br>
> This assumes that monetized transfers and/or
leasing cannot be done<br>
> on the basis of need, which is a false premise.
To the best of my knowledge,<br>
> Larus is quite scrupulous and detailed in
collecting need justification from<br>
> customers prior to issuing addresses to them.
That is certainly the written<br>
> company policy and has been the case with each
and every recipient<br>
> case I have been involved with in my consulting
for them.<br>
><br>
>> Should I be allowed to "buy" a /16 from
AfriNIC, put it in a safe, sell<br>
>> it 3 years later for $profit ???<br>
> No. The rules prohibit you putting it in a safe
and not routing it. Also, you<br>
> aren’t buying the /16, you are paying a fee for
the service of recording and<br>
> maintaining the registration of the space. You
can’t sell the integers, but<br>
> selling the registration of the integers has
become common practice<br>
> worldwide whether you like it or not.<br>
><br>
>> Is that the purpose for which AfriNIC got
the /8's from IANA?<br>
> Things have changed since the IANA was issuing
/8s. The world has changed.<br>
> Many of the /8s were issued by the IANA in
order to support Email, FTP, and<br>
> NNTP. I suspect there are very few servers
running FTP or NNTP these days,<br>
> and while EMAIL is still a pervasive technology
(for better or worse), it is not<br>
> a significant fraction of internet traffic.<br>
><br>
> Very few of the /8s issued by IANA were issued
during a time when streaming<br>
> video could have been considered as a purpose
for issuing them, yet today<br>
> it is probably the largest consumer of
bandwidth on the internet by far.<br>
><br>
> Should we require all of the RIRs that have
issued space to Netflix after<br>
> IANA runout to reclaim and return that space to
IANA and rejustify it because<br>
> streaming video was not the purpose for which
it was issued?<br>
><br>
> I think not.<br>
><br>
>> PS: all or most questions are serious.
answers will help.<br>
> All of the answers were serious as well. I’d
expect nothing less from<br>
> someone of your stature in the community.<br>
><br>
> I hope the answers are helpful.<br>
><br>
> Owen<br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> RPD mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
> <a
href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a
href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>