<div dir="ltr">Hello Fernando,<br><br>In these discussions, it is very important to maintain other's freedom to share their arguments. You may have laid out your own points (or bases), but it is also important to ask yourself if those are logical enough to be accepted as the "answer" to the crucial issue at hand. We can hardly find the true and exact answer to the arguments and that's why most people here want to hear from AFRINIC - to seek clarity and actually know its motivations. We are here exchanging points we find most reasonable just like you do.<br><br> Also, you stated: "<i>when someone is in defense of something they may depend on there is nothing can be said for them to be convinced, unfortunately." </i>Don't you think that applies to you as well? Many relevant arguments for IP leasing have been made (i.e. how other RIRs allow it as well and how some African enterprises benefit from such IP services), but you still get to quickly dismiss IP leasing as something that's absurd.<br><br><br><br>Respectfully,<br>Christian<div><br></div><div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 8:36 PM Fernando Frediani <<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com" target="_blank">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>What an enddless repetition of the same thing over and over oh
dear !<br>
Not only me but othesr have mentioned several different basis for
that throughout this conversation but it seems simply this is not
accepted by some and they keep asking the same thing as maybe the
only way to keep defending absurd stuff as IP Leasing as something
"normal and acceptable".<br>
If we reply again saying all the basis someone will ask "What is
your basis?". When someone is in defense of something they may
depend on there is nothing can be said for them to be convinced,
unfortunately.</p>
<p>Fernando<br>
</p>
<div>Em 7/14/2021 6:05 AM, Owen DeLong
escreveu:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<br>
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>On Jul 2, 2021, at 10:36 , Fernando Frediani
<<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com" target="_blank">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div>
<br>
<div>
<div>
<p>So they are relying on a wrong option which
should never have relied. <br>
</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>What is your basis (specifically, section numbers please)
in policy (CPM, RSA, or bylaws) for calling this “wrong”?</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>
<p> 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>
</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
But this option is not available to AFRINIC resource members at
this time, so what should they do in this instance?</div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>
<p> 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>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
It seems to me that this is a moral judgment based strictly on
your own opinion with no basis in policy. If you have a basis in
policy for this argument, please present it.</div>
<div>Please be specific and cite the relevant sections of the
governing document that you base your conclusion on.</div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>
<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>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Again, this is a value judgment you are making without any valid
basis in policy. If you believe there is such a basis, then
please provide specific citation(s) showing same.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Otherwise, kindly talk about what you believe should be
policy rather than stating it as if it is fact.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>AFRINIC has done enough making up policy as they go along.
It’s time to follow the policies as written. If you don’t like
the policies as written, then there’s a process for changing
them and you are completely free to submit a policy proposal to
do so. If you need help figuring out the process, let me know. I
will happily help you even though I will likely oppose your
policy. I am all for a thorough debate of this topic around an
appropriate policy proposal so that the community can make an
informed choice once and for all and reduce the ambiguities that
have plagued us so far.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Owen</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>
<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"></span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:16px;font-family:Gotham,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><br>
</span></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><span style="font-size:16px;font-family:Gotham,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-size:16px;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">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>>
a écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid 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">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">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">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">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">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">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
</blockquote></div>