Re: IP range for lease

[Delong.com via NANOG]

> On Jul 10, 2023, at 06:58, Sylvain Baya  wrote:
> 
> Dear NANOG-ers,
> Hope this email finds you in good health!
> 
> Please see my comments below, inline...
> 
> Le jeudi 6 juillet 2023, Owen DeLong via NANOG  > a écrit :
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Karin,
>> 
>> Opinions regarding leasing vary throughout the industry. In my opinion, 
>> since the shift to provider assigned addresses during the CIDR efforts in 
>> the mid 1990s, the majority of addresses have been leased in one form or 
>> another. 
>> 
>  
> 
> Hi Owen,
> Thanks for your email, brother.
> ...do you mean that such activity was supported by
>  a policy? or it was just a disruption of a principle 
> which is fundamental; in order to guarantee that 
> the common INRs (Internet Number Resources) 
> are fairly distributed and not easily stockpilled? 

I mean that norms have evolved since the initial internet days:

Original: All addresses were obtained from Jon Postel and recorded in his 
notebook.
Next step: All addresses were obtained from NIC.DDN.MIL via email template 
submission.
Then: All addresses obtained from successor NICs.
Then: Addresses obtained from RIR or successor NIC.
Then: Addresses obtained from provider or RIR or NIC, but still permanent issue.
Then: Addresses obtained from RIR or NIC are (quasi-)permanent, but addresses 
obtained from provider are returned upon termination of services. (i.e. leased 
in association with connectivity)
Then: Sometimes you could arrange to keep the addresses from your previous 
provider by paying them a periodic (annual, monthly, etc.) fee.
Now: Essentially the same as the previous era, except that there are some 
providers who now provide leases without ever providing connectivity.

To the best of my knowledge, none of the previous methods were controversial or 
even received significant notice as they occurred. It was just sort of the 
natural evolution of address distribution as the internet grew.

Really, the difference between being able to pay a former provider to keep your 
addresses and being able to lease addresses from a non-provider doesn’t seem 
like a significant change from my perspective.

I don’t see any disruption of principle here. To the bets of my knowledge, 
there is only one RIR which has a policy which specifically precludes this form 
of leasing (APNIC). Other RIRs policies are silent on the subject.

The way number resource policy works is that it generally prohibits behaviors 
deemed unacceptable by the community rather than enumerating what is permitted. 
Therefore, silence is consent in most cases.

>> The only thing novel here is the leasing of addresses independent of 
>> connectivity services. 
>> 
> 
> So! it's a leasing of something not owned? and it 
> became worse with the idea of Monkey(ing it)-In-
> The-middle (MITM)...

I’m not sure I understand what you mean by that.

Virtually all providers on the planet currently lease addresses to their 
subscribers. This occurs on a daily basis. I’d be willing to bet that whatever 
address you are using at home are leased addresses from your provider (mine are 
not, but I will admit that I do have leased addresses from providers 
terminating the tunnels I use to route my real addresses).

Your objection here isn’t to leasing (everyone accepts leasing with 
connectivity for a very long time now,
as the internet was relatively smalll when that change occurred.)

Your objection is to connectivity independent leasing — leasing by entities 
that are not providing connectivity services to the lessee.

> What's the difference, please?

An odd question given that my stated position is that there is little to no 
difference between connectivity-based leasing and connectivity independent 
leasing.

> Are you trying to change a definition, in order to 
> convince this community that this sad practice 
> was started at the very beginning of the INRs  distribution?

I’m not trying to change anything. The definition of leasing is the plain 
English meaning of the term — Permitted use of a thing for a period of time 
specified in a contract in exchange for some value received (usually a fee).

This is true of apartments (monthly rent), IP addresses from ISPs (either built 
into the cost of your ISP services or billed as an add-on), and now IP 
addresses leased independent of connectivity.

> What's your understanding of "need-based"?

So long as the end recipient of the addresses has a legitimate technical need 
for them, what difference is it who provides the address to them, whether IANA, 
an RIR, an ISP, or another entity that has registered addresses they don’t 
currently need?

> Why are they stocking INRs without any need to 
> properly use it?

There are so many possible explanations for this that it would be impossible to 
enumerate them all here, but some that come to mind:

A company received a /16 back when they were being issued as class Bs. They are 
still using 75+% of it, but they have several /

Re: IP range for lease

[John Curran]

On Jul 11, 2023, at 5:14 PM, Owen DeLong  wrote:
...
In fact, John, some further NRPM research reveals the following:

1. Downstream references almost all apply to address issuance limitations and 
customer utilization limitations.
The only places the term is applied to registration are NRPM 4.2.3..3.2 
(Residential customer privacy),
NRPM 6.5.5.3.1 (Residential Customer Privacy)  and NRPM 6.5.5.4 (Registration 
Requested by Recipient)..

2. Language requiring registration of reallocations and reassignments are as 
follows:   ...

3. I don’t see anything ambiguous in that text that would exclude reassignments 
or reallocations independent of connectivity from the registration requirements.

Owen -

There is nothing explicit either way, and I have provided the current policy 
interpretation – If you believe it should be done in a specific manner, please 
propose policy changes to make more explicit.

(In any case, please take this topic to ARIN’s ppml mailing list if you wish to 
continue further discussion, as nanog is not the best list for such topics…)

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers

Re: IP range for lease

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

> On Jul 11, 2023, at 09:52, John Curran  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 12:40 PM, Owen DeLong  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 09:04, John Curran  wrote:
>>> 
>>> ...
>>> 
>>> Of course, further policy clarity (whether to make clear that it does apply 
>>> to non-connectivity reassignments or to make clear it does not apply beyond 
>>> downstream customers) would be most welcome; I believe you are already 
>>> aware of the policy proposal submission process if you want to propose 
>>> updating it accordingly.
>> 
>> All of the organizations I know of that are leasing space apply the term 
>> downstream as it pertains to the issuance of the addresses regardless of the 
>> connectivity relationship.
> 
> That may be the case, but since the earliest days of ARIN the term 
> “downstream” has been used by this operator community to refer to customer 
> connectivity, so we’ll maintain current usage until directed otherwise by the 
> community. 
> 
>> I suppose policy clarity here could be useful,
> 
> Indeed.
> 
>> … but I suspect that just like ISPs, the situation will basically boil down 
>> to “those that want to comply will do so in good faith and others will not.”
> 
> That is also up to the community, as there is an obvious tradeoff between 
> enforcement and registry accuracy – if the community wishes more accuracy in 
> the registry, there needs to be clarity in policy regarding what actions ARIN 
> should take with respect to non-compliance. 
> 
> Thanks!
> /John
> 
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> American Registry for Internet Numbers
> 
> 
> 


In fact, John, some further NRPM research reveals the following:

1.  Downstream references almost all apply to address issuance limitations 
and customer utilization limitations.
The only places the term is applied to registration are NRPM 4.2.3..3.2 
(Residential customer privacy),
NRPM 6.5.5.3.1 (Residential Customer Privacy)  and NRPM 6.5.5.4 
(Registration Requested by Recipient)..

2.  Language requiring registration of reallocations and reassignments are 
as follows:

4.2.3.7. Registration
ISPs are required to demonstrate efficient use of IP address space allocations 
by providing appropriate documentation, including but not limited to assignment 
histories, showing their efficient use.
4.2.3.7.1. Reassignment and Reallocation Information

Each IPv4 reassignment or reallocation containing a /29 or more addresses shall 
be registered via SWIP or a directory services system which meets the standards 
set forth in section 3.2.

Reassignment registrations must include each customer name, except where 
specifically exempted by this policy. Reassignment registrations shall only 
include point of contact (POC) information if either: (1) requested by the 
customer; or (2) the reassigned block is intended to be routed and announced 
outside of the provider’s network.

Reallocation registrations must contain the customer’s organization name and 
appropriate point of contact (POC) information.
4.2.3.7.2. Reassignments and Reallocations Visible Within Seven Days
All reassignments and reallocations shall be made visible as required in 
section 4.2.3.7.1 within seven calendar days of reassignment or reallocation.
6.5.5. Registration
ISPs are required to demonstrate efficient use of IP address space allocations 
by providing appropriate documentation, including but not limited to 
reassignment and reallocation histories, showing their efficient use.
6.5.5.1. Reassignment Information
Each static IPv6 reassignment or reallocation containing a /47 or more 
addresses, or subdelegation of any size that will be individually announced, 
shall be registered in the WHOIS directory via SWIP or a distributed service 
which meets the standards set forth in section 3.2. Reassignment and 
reallocation registrations shall include each client’s organizational 
information, except where specifically exempted by this policy.
6.5.5.2. Reassignments and Reallocations Visible Within Seven Days
All reassignments and reallocations shall be made visible as required in 
section 6.5.5.1 within seven calendar days of reassignment or reallocation.
3.  I don’t see anything ambiguous in that text that would exclude 
reassignments or reallocations independent of connectivity from the 
registration requirements.

4.  It is my belief that N$PM4 policies still govern IPv4 space held by 
ARIN subscribers regardless of whether it was obtained by the current 
registrant as a result of NRPM4 or NPRM8. Please let me know if that is in 
error.

Owen

Re: IP range for lease

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

> On Jul 11, 2023, at 10:02, William Herrin  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 8:47 AM Owen DeLong via NANOG  wrote:
>>> – Leasing of IP address blocks independent of connectivity is not 
>>> explicitly recognized in ARIN number resource policy (i.e. there is no 
>>> policy that specifically allows or prohibits such activity.)
>> 
>> Correct me if I am wrong here, but in general, that which is not explicitly 
>> prohibited is implicitly allowed.
> 
> Hi Owen,
> 
> You're wrong-ish. "Address leasing" is not prohibited per se, it just
> doesn't count as in-use for the utilization requirements.

Yes, but that lack of counting while apparently not making it into the NRPM was 
definitely discussed
extensively with the community and the AC and ARIN staff. This is admittedly 
from memory, but
IIRC, the conclusion was that was the best possible interpretation of existing 
policy as written.

> Consider Amazon AWS. You can have an "elastic IP address" that's not
> attached to a running server. If it stays that way for most of the
> month, they charge you for it explicitly rather than wrap it up in the
> general server charge. In other words, they lease the address without
> any associated connectivity.

Well… Before the lawyers come after me, I’ll agree that $CLOUDPROVIDER
acts as you specify and that $CLOUDPROVIDER’s actions are completely
reasonable and function as you have described. (I’ve been repeatedly advised
to avoid using company names when discussing ARIN policy).

> Is that address in use per ARIN policy? I don't think it is. Has ARIN
> ever asked Amazon to detail the number of elastic IP addresses that
> are not actually in use when it sought more addresses? Probably not.
> Should they have? Only if there's reason to believe that there are a
> large enough number of such addresses to make a difference. Otherwise
> it's purposeless paperwork.

I think this is a very accurate summary of the current situation, yes.

I also suspect that this situation exists in numerous situations where ARIN
remains blissfully unaware of it even when it would matter. (Not necessarily
with any particular or named $CLOUDPROVIDER, but across all the
organizations that ARIN serves, I’d be surprised if none fit this description).

Owen

Re: IP range for lease

[John Curran]

Owen, BIll - 

Might I suggest moving this entire discussion over to ARIN’s ppml, as not 
everyone on nanog list necessary wants to spent their time reading about IP 
registry policy…?

Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers

> On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:02 PM, William Herrin  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 8:47 AM Owen DeLong via NANOG  wrote:
>>> – Leasing of IP address blocks independent of connectivity is not 
>>> explicitly recognized in ARIN number resource policy (i.e. there is no 
>>> policy that specifically allows or prohibits such activity.)
>> 
>> Correct me if I am wrong here, but in general, that which is not explicitly 
>> prohibited is implicitly allowed.
> 
> Hi Owen,
> 
> You're wrong-ish. "Address leasing" is not prohibited per se, it just
> doesn't count as in-use for the utilization requirements.
> 
> Consider Amazon AWS. You can have an "elastic IP address" that's not
> attached to a running server. If it stays that way for most of the
> month, they charge you for it explicitly rather than wrap it up in the
> general server charge. In other words, they lease the address without
> any associated connectivity.
> 
> Is that address in use per ARIN policy? I don't think it is. Has ARIN
> ever asked Amazon to detail the number of elastic IP addresses that
> are not actually in use when it sought more addresses? Probably not.
> Should they have? Only if there's reason to believe that there are a
> large enough number of such addresses to make a difference. Otherwise
> it's purposeless paperwork.
> 
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
> 
> 
> -- 
> William Herrin
> b...@herrin.us
> https://bill.herrin.us/

Re: IP range for lease

[William Herrin]

On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 8:47 AM Owen DeLong via NANOG  wrote:
>> – Leasing of IP address blocks independent of connectivity is not explicitly 
>> recognized in ARIN number resource policy (i.e. there is no policy that 
>> specifically allows or prohibits such activity.)
>
> Correct me if I am wrong here, but in general, that which is not explicitly 
> prohibited is implicitly allowed.

Hi Owen,

You're wrong-ish. "Address leasing" is not prohibited per se, it just
doesn't count as in-use for the utilization requirements.

Consider Amazon AWS. You can have an "elastic IP address" that's not
attached to a running server. If it stays that way for most of the
month, they charge you for it explicitly rather than wrap it up in the
general server charge. In other words, they lease the address without
any associated connectivity.

Is that address in use per ARIN policy? I don't think it is. Has ARIN
ever asked Amazon to detail the number of elastic IP addresses that
are not actually in use when it sought more addresses? Probably not.
Should they have? Only if there's reason to believe that there are a
large enough number of such addresses to make a difference. Otherwise
it's purposeless paperwork.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/

Re: IP range for lease

[John Curran]

On Jul 11, 2023, at 12:40 PM, Owen DeLong  wrote:


On Jul 11, 2023, at 09:04, John Curran  wrote:

...

Of course, further policy clarity (whether to make clear that it does apply to 
non-connectivity reassignments or to make clear it does not apply beyond 
downstream customers) would be most welcome; I believe you are already aware of 
the policy proposal submission process if you want to propose updating it 
accordingly.

All of the organizations I know of that are leasing space apply the term 
downstream as it pertains to the issuance of the addresses regardless of the 
connectivity relationship.

That may be the case, but since the earliest days of ARIN the term “downstream” 
has been used by this operator community to refer to customer connectivity, so 
we’ll maintain current usage until directed otherwise by the community.

I suppose policy clarity here could be useful,

Indeed.

… but I suspect that just like ISPs, the situation will basically boil down to 
“those that want to comply will do so in good faith and others will not.”

That is also up to the community, as there is an obvious tradeoff between 
enforcement and registry accuracy – if the community wishes more accuracy in 
the registry, there needs to be clarity in policy regarding what actions ARIN 
should take with respect to non-compliance.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers

Re: IP range for lease

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

> On Jul 11, 2023, at 09:04, John Curran  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 11:47 AM, Owen DeLong  wrote:
>> 
>> Actually, I couldn’t find anything in the NRPM which leads me to believe 
>> that there is any distinction in the documentation requirements for 
>> reassignment/reallocation regardless of associated connectivity. None of the 
>> policies seemed to specify this. As such, I would think that Connectivity 
>> Independent Leasing (CIL) and Connectivity Related Leasing (CRL) would be 
>> subject to exactly the same recording/reporting requirements.
>> 
> 
> Owen – 
> 
> ARIN NRPM Section 4.2.3.  "Reassigning and Reallocating Address Space to 
> Customers" utilizes the term “Downstream” in references to both downstream 
> end-users and downstream ISPs documentation requirements.
> 
> As the community has historically interpreted the phrase “downstream" to 
> refer to connectivity customers (and further that the requirements documented 
> are applied in oder to have accurate operational utilization), ARIN continues 
> to interpret the policy as applicable to reissuance of resources to 
> connectivity customers. 
> 
> Of course, further policy clarity (whether to make clear that it does apply 
> to non-connectivity reassignments or to make clear it does not apply beyond 
> downstream customers) would be most welcome; I believe you are already aware 
> of the policy proposal submission process if you want to propose updating it 
> accordingly.

All of the organizations I know of that are leasing space apply the term 
downstream as it pertains to the issuance of the addresses regardless of the 
connectivity relationship.

I suppose policy clarity here could be useful, but I suspect that just like 
ISPs, the situation will basically boil down to “those that want to comply will 
do so in good faith and others will not.”

Owen

Re: IP range for lease

[John Curran]

On Jul 11, 2023, at 11:47 AM, Owen DeLong  wrote:

Actually, I couldn’t find anything in the NRPM which leads me to believe that 
there is any distinction in the documentation requirements for 
reassignment/reallocation regardless of associated connectivity. None of the 
policies seemed to specify this. As such, I would think that Connectivity 
Independent Leasing (CIL) and Connectivity Related Leasing (CRL) would be 
subject to exactly the same recording/reporting requirements.


Owen –

ARIN NRPM Section 4.2.3.  "Reassigning and Reallocating Address Space to 
Customers" utilizes the term “Downstream” in references to both downstream 
end-users and downstream ISPs documentation requirements.

As the community has historically interpreted the phrase “downstream" to refer 
to connectivity customers (and further that the requirements documented are 
applied in oder to have accurate operational utilization), ARIN continues to 
interpret the policy as applicable to reissuance of resources to connectivity 
customers.

Of course, further policy clarity (whether to make clear that it does apply to 
non-connectivity reassignments or to make clear it does not apply beyond 
downstream customers) would be most welcome; I believe you are already aware of 
the policy proposal submission process if you want to propose updating it 
accordingly.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers

Re: IP range for lease

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

> On Jul 10, 2023, at 10:22, John Curran  wrote:
> 
>> On Jul 5, 2023, at 10:06 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG  wrote:
>> ...
>> Opinions regarding leasing vary throughout the industry. In my opinion, 
>> since the shift to provider assigned addresses during the CIDR efforts in 
>> the mid 1990s, the majority of addresses have been leased in one form or 
>> another. 
>> 
>> The only thing novel here is the leasing of addresses independent of 
>> connectivity services. However, once the RIRs and their communities 
>> normalized the sale of addresses through directed transfer policies, I think 
>> this was an inevitable next step in the devolution of IPv4 into a monetized 
>> asset. 
>> 
>> It doesn’t help that the earliest and most prolific adopters of this form of 
>> leasing have been snowshoe spammers. 
>> 
>> However, there are leasing agencies that insist on getting proper 
>> justification from their customers and have strong anti-abuse policies. I 
>> would strongly encourage you to seek out such an organization to partner 
>> with if you choose to lease your addresses as there are a number of pitfalls 
>> you can encounter otherwise. 
> 
> To follow-up on Owen’s points and clarify just a bit (at least to respect to 
> policy in the ARIN region) – 
> 
> – IP address blocks in the ARIN region are issued by ARIN based upon 
> operational need (as per the community-developed policy document in the 
> Number Resource Policy Manual [NRPM - 
> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/] 
> ) 
> 
> – Portions of IP address blocks are routinely “leased” by ISPs to customers, 
> although such leasing has historically been as part of a bundle including 
> connectivity services.
> 
> – Because one needs IP addressed to provide connectivity services, leasing of 
> address space as part of providing connectivity is considered operational 
> need (and as such counts towards utilization of one’s address space) 
> 
> – Leasing of IP address space independent of connectivity doesn’t fulfill 
> operational need, and hence doesn’t count as utilization when you come back 
> to ARIN seeking additional space (or approval of a transfer inwards of an IP 
> address block)

Exceptions apply. For example, I know of situations where providers have 
continued to lease addresses to former customers that wanted to avoid 
renumbering,
yet ARIN has permitted those addresses to be counted as utilized during 
applications for additional space. I don’t know if these exceptions were 
intentional on
ARIN’s part or not, but they have definitely occurred and I’m not convinced 
that ARIN could reject them under existing policy.

> – Leasing of IP address blocks independent of connectivity is not explicitly 
> recognized in ARIN number resource policy (i.e. there is no policy that 
> specifically allows or prohibits such activity.) 

Correct me if I am wrong here, but in general, that which is not explicitly 
prohibited is implicitly allowed.

> – In the ARIN region, we have fairly clear guidelines requiring documentation 
> [via SWIP, RWHOIS, RDAP…] of significant reassignment/reallocations to 
> connectivity customers (as part of documenting IP address block usage), but 
> no clear requirements for reporting of reissuance of space via leasing 
> independent of connectivity.  Furthermore, all address blocks in the ARIN 
> registry are required to have accurate abuse contacts (unless residential in 
> which case accurate contacts must be in the upstream providers block.)

Actually, I couldn’t find anything in the NRPM which leads me to believe that 
there is any distinction in the documentation requirements for 
reassignment/reallocation regardless of associated connectivity. None of the 
policies seemed to specify this. As such, I would think that Connectivity 
Independent Leasing (CIL) and Connectivity Related Leasing (CRL) would be 
subject to exactly the same recording/reporting requirements.

> If folks wish to have the registry operate accordingly to some other 
> policies, please submit a policy proposal 
>  (or seek out a 
> member of the ARIN Advisory Council  
> which helps shepherd the policy development process and can assist you with 
> preparation of same…) 

I think that you know that if I had a problem with the current status quo, I 
would do exactly that. ;-) I have never hesitated in the past.

Owen

Re: IP range for lease

[bzs]

On July 5, 2023 at 19:06 nanog@nanog.org (Owen DeLong via NANOG) wrote:
 > Karin,
 > 
 > Opinions regarding leasing vary throughout the industry. In my opinion, since
 > the shift to provider assigned addresses during the CIDR efforts in the mid
 > 1990s, the majority of addresses have been leased in one form or another. 
 > 
 > The only thing novel here is the leasing of addresses independent of
 > connectivity services. However, once the RIRs and their communities 
 > normalized
 > the sale of addresses through directed transfer policies, I think this was an
 > inevitable next step in the devolution of IPv4 into a monetized asset. 
 > 
 > It doesn’t help that the earliest and most prolific adopters of this form of
 > leasing have been snowshoe spammers. 
 > 
 > However, there are leasing agencies that insist on getting proper 
 > justification
 > from their customers and have strong anti-abuse policies. I would strongly
 > encourage you to seek out such an organization to partner with if you choose 
 > to
 > lease your addresses as there are a number of pitfalls you can encounter
 > otherwise. 
 > 
 > Owen

That was so...responsibly put. I almost thought I wasn't on nanog!

-- 
-Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die| b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD   | 800-THE-WRLD
The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

Re: IP range for lease

[John Curran]

On Jul 5, 2023, at 10:06 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG  wrote:
...
Opinions regarding leasing vary throughout the industry. In my opinion, since 
the shift to provider assigned addresses during the CIDR efforts in the mid 
1990s, the majority of addresses have been leased in one form or another.

The only thing novel here is the leasing of addresses independent of 
connectivity services. However, once the RIRs and their communities normalized 
the sale of addresses through directed transfer policies, I think this was an 
inevitable next step in the devolution of IPv4 into a monetized asset.

It doesn’t help that the earliest and most prolific adopters of this form of 
leasing have been snowshoe spammers.

However, there are leasing agencies that insist on getting proper justification 
from their customers and have strong anti-abuse policies. I would strongly 
encourage you to seek out such an organization to partner with if you choose to 
lease your addresses as there are a number of pitfalls you can encounter 
otherwise.

To follow-up on Owen’s points and clarify just a bit (at least to respect to 
policy in the ARIN region) –

– IP address blocks in the ARIN region are issued by ARIN based upon 
operational need (as per the community-developed policy document in the Number 
Resource Policy Manual [NRPM - 
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/])

– Portions of IP address blocks are routinely “leased” by ISPs to customers, 
although such leasing has historically been as part of a bundle including 
connectivity services.

– Because one needs IP addressed to provide connectivity services, leasing of 
address space as part of providing connectivity is considered operational need 
(and as such counts towards utilization of one’s address space)

– Leasing of IP address space independent of connectivity doesn’t fulfill 
operational need, and hence doesn’t count as utilization when you come back to 
ARIN seeking additional space (or approval of a transfer inwards of an IP 
address block)

– Leasing of IP address blocks independent of connectivity is not explicitly 
recognized in ARIN number resource policy (i.e. there is no policy that 
specifically allows or prohibits such activity.)

– In the ARIN region, we have fairly clear guidelines requiring documentation 
[via SWIP, RWHOIS, RDAP…] of significant reassignment/reallocations to 
connectivity customers (as part of documenting IP address block usage), but no 
clear requirements for reporting of reissuance of space via leasing independent 
of connectivity.  Furthermore, all address blocks in the ARIN registry are 
required to have accurate abuse contacts (unless residential in which case 
accurate contacts must be in the upstream providers block.)

If folks wish to have the registry operate accordingly to some other policies, 
please submit a policy proposal 
 (or seek out a member 
of the ARIN Advisory Council  which 
helps shepherd the policy development process and can assist you with 
preparation of same…)

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers

Re: IP range for lease

[Rubens Kuhl]

> Too much grey area with respect to property rights (or lack thereof) as they 
> relate to INRs. Until there is more concrete case law on the matter, which 
> isn't likely to happen in most of our careers, monetizing it will be the rule.

Hopefully IPv4 becomes irrelevant (although still used) before that
happens. That said, the history of other US high courts decisions on
critical resources (domains + numbers) is of very reasoned decisions,
so if one comes along, it will likely not be what "monetizers" would
prefer.


Rubens

Re: IP range for lease

[Tom Beecher]

>
> To summarise, if there is no longer a need, please
> do either one of the following three things:
>
> 1| send it back to the RIR;
> 2| change the word *lease* to *transfer* and
> announce your willing to transfer the INRs you hold.
> 3| do not hesitate to discuss your alternatives with
> the RIR's Staff. They are paid to support you!
>

While those are probably the most altruistic things that could be done,
almost nobody does those any more.

Too much grey area with respect to property rights (or lack thereof) as
they relate to INRs. Until there is more concrete case law on the matter,
which isn't likely to happen in most of our careers, monetizing it will be
the rule.

On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 10:00 AM Sylvain Baya  wrote:

> Dear NANOG-ers,
> Hope this email finds you in good health!
>
> Please see my comments below, inline...
>
> Le jeudi 6 juillet 2023, Owen DeLong via NANOG  a écrit :
>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Karin,
>>
>> Opinions regarding leasing vary throughout the industry. In my opinion,
>> since the shift to provider assigned addresses during the CIDR efforts in
>> the mid 1990s, the majority of addresses have been leased in one form or
>> another.
>>
>>
>
> Hi Owen,
> Thanks for your email, brother.
> ...do you mean that such activity was supported by
>  a policy? or it was just a disruption of a principle
> which is fundamental; in order to guarantee that
> the common INRs (Internet Number Resources)
> are fairly distributed and not easily stockpilled?
>
>
>> The only thing novel here is the leasing of addresses independent of
>> connectivity services.
>>
>>
> So! it's a leasing of something not owned? and it
> became worse with the idea of Monkey(ing it)-In-
> The-middle (MITM)...
>
> What's the difference, please?
>
> Are you trying to change a definition, in order to
> convince this community that this sad practice
> was started at the very beginning of the INRs  distribution?
>
> What's your understanding of "need-based"?
> Why are they stocking INRs without any need to
> properly use it?
>
> ...imho! the waiting list would be less longer with
> those INRs withing the free pools.
>
>
>>
>> However, once the RIRs and their communities normalized the sale of
>> addresses through directed transfer policies, I think this was an
>>
>>
> Any RIR's policy you can share, to support your say?
>
>
>
>>
>> inevitable next step in the devolution of IPv4 into a monetized asset.
>>
>>
> What's the relation between leasing INRs and
> transfering it?
>
> Brother, you know that:
> * an INR transfer is a one time change in holdership
> * where leasing INRs is a proof that there is no
> longer any need of the community's resource held.
>
> ...imho! the communities chose a good approach
> in support to those who maintain Internet services
>  and build the Internet infrastructure. It should be
> seen as an exceptional rule, not the usual...because
>  it's an alternative when need ends.
>
> ...the other alternative, consistent with the principle,
>  is not the leasing of INRs; but the returning.
>
>
>
>>
>> It doesn’t help that the earliest and most prolific adopters of this form
>> of leasing have been snowshoe spammers.
>>
>>
> It helps to better understand how bad is the thing :'(
>
> ...please, do consider the following scenario:
>
> |1. you have a fundamental principle for INRs distribution within the
> regional RIR
> |2. for each resource holder, the RIR is responsible
> to enforce the Policy Manual
> |3. a resource holder receives some INRs from a
> regional RIR
> |4. that resource holder stops to comply to the
> principle in "1"
> |5. the INRs delegated to that resource holder are
> not used according to the community-based Policy
>  Manual
> |6. in order to justify its use, that resource holder
> assign part of the delegated INRs to its clients
> |7. the clients are asked to comply the the Policy
> Manual; including the fundamental principle in "1"
> |8. .
>
> How shall it end?
>
>
>
>>
>> However, there are leasing agencies that insist on getting proper
>> justification from their customers and have strong anti-abuse policies.
>>
>>
> Great! btw! what's their need? who need a MITM
> in the process, when it's possible to simply transfer
> the resource or simply send it back to the free pool?
>
>
>>
>> I would strongly encourage you to seek out such an organization to
>> partner with if you choose to lease your addresses as there are a number of
>> pitfalls you can encounter otherwise.
>>
>>
> ...risks are either ways! would you recommend
> to someone to put its private keys within one
> else personal's computer?
>
> Hi Karim,
> To summarise, if there is no longer a need, please
> do either one of the following three things:
>
> 1| send it back to the RIR;
> 2| change the word *lease* to *transfer* and
> announce your willing to transfer the INRs you hold.
> 3| do not hesitate to discuss your alternatives with
> the RIR's Staff. They are paid to support you!
>
> Thanks.
>
> Shalom,
> --sb.
>
>
>
>>
>

Re: IP range for lease

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

Karin,Opinions regarding leasing vary throughout the industry. In my opinion, since the shift to provider assigned addresses during the CIDR efforts in the mid 1990s, the majority of addresses have been leased in one form or another. The only thing novel here is the leasing of addresses independent of connectivity services. However, once the RIRs and their communities normalized the sale of addresses through directed transfer policies, I think this was an inevitable next step in the devolution of IPv4 into a monetized asset. It doesn’t help that the earliest and most prolific adopters of this form of leasing have been snowshoe spammers. However, there are leasing agencies that insist on getting proper justification from their customers and have strong anti-abuse policies. I would strongly encourage you to seek out such an organization to partner with if you choose to lease your addresses as there are a number of pitfalls you can encounter otherwise. OwenOn Jul 3, 2023, at 08:25, Noah  wrote:Hi KARIM,Considering the fact that IPs are requested on need-basis by resource holders to number your own networks/systems and that of your clients?Any reason why MEKTEL would want to offer IPs for lease? Cheers,./noahOn Mon, Jul 3, 2023 at 6:16 PM KARIM MEKKAOUI  wrote:







Dear NANOG Community,
 
MEKTEL has a block of IPs that would like to offer in parts or in total for lease and would like to know from your experience your comments on the following:

The right priceThe challenges you facedWas it easy to get back your IPsWas your IPs black listed because of the inappropriate useAny other issue we need to care aboutEtc., etc.
 
Thank you in advance
 
KARIM
MEKTEL INC.
 

Re: IP range for lease

[Noah]

Hi KARIM,

Considering the fact that IPs are requested on need-basis by resource
holders to number your own networks/systems and that of your clients?

Any reason why MEKTEL would want to offer IPs for lease?

Cheers,
*.**/noah*



On Mon, Jul 3, 2023 at 6:16 PM KARIM MEKKAOUI  wrote:

> Dear NANOG Community,
>
>
>
> MEKTEL has a block of IPs that would like to offer in parts or in total
> for lease and would like to know from your experience your comments on the
> following:
>
>1. The right price
>2. The challenges you faced
>3. Was it easy to get back your IPs
>4. Was your IPs black listed because of the inappropriate use
>5. Any other issue we need to care about
>6. Etc., etc.
>
>
>
> Thank you in advance
>
>
>
> KARIM
>
> MEKTEL INC.
>
>
>