<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Some people seem to try to justify that IP Leasing as something
normal "because they need or depend on that" or "because it earns
money leasing addresses to other organizations" or "because it is
a functional way to bypass the current exhaustion phases of some
RIRs". None of that is a justification for something that keeps
being wrong. It is not because it works well for some that it has
to be something acceptable by the current rules. Depending on IP
Leasing does not make it right or acceptable in terms of
justification.</p>
<p>If you don't see in the CPM and with the different explanations
that have been given here in the discussion I am sorry you failed
to understand (maybe because you or other do not wish to
understand it). Perhaps you are expecting some specific set of
words in the CPM that are not there, but the important part is
staff to interpret that IP Leasing means the current resource
holder is using the addresses in a different way from what they
have been justified initially and resources may be subject to
revocation. Can you justify resources saying you need them because
you intend to lease them ? No you can't.<br>
</p>
<p>Fernando<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 02/07/2021 18:49, Ibeanusi Elvis
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CANanHiyERk4ssQbAFwQMR_XEwFgOUPgrVyCyC52bVffrzcDRvQ@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="auto">Hello Fernando, </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">In your previous email, you outlined “relying on
the WRONG OPTION”. Again, like you’ve been asked, what are you
criteria or justification for what constitutes a “wrong option”.
Also, I don’t see where the CPM prohibits IP Leasing and based
on what you said earlier, what about the consequences of the end
user losing connectivity?. </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Elvis. </div>
<div><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Jul 3, 2021 at 5:28
Fernando Frediani <<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">
<div>
<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.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Fernando<br>
</p>
<div>On 02/07/2021 15:45, Mimi dy wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Hi Fernando,<span> </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" 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;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">
<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;font-family:Gotham,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0)"></span></div>
<div><span
style="font-size:16px;font-family:Gotham,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br>
</span></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><span
style="font-size:16px;font-family:Gotham,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span
style="font-size:16px;font-family:Gotham,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><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;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">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>
</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>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>