No, I’m not thinking that anyone should increase the price. I consider that the right thing to do is that if anyone that has unused recourses, should be honest enough with the community to return them to the RIR, unfortunately the world is not so nice.
Smaller ISPs are the ones that have an easier and cheaper transition to IPv6 is they start doing so now, as latest, more expensive. We have seen this already since long time ago. It is their decision. Not doing the transition is already meaning they are risking their own business. Leasing is against the actual policy. We don’t change that. If you really think it should be changed, the way is not working against this proposal, but making one that change the actual status quo. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 7/9/22, 16:15, "Mike Burns" <m...@iptrading.com> escribió: Hi Jordi, It’s plain you feel that we should do all possible to raise the price of IPv4 and make it unattainable for small business in the vain hope that this will drive IPv6 adoption. I don’t think making IPv4 more difficult to acquire is the job of the RIR system. You have not addressed the inability of smaller companies to acquire necessary IPv4 blocks if you ban leasing. Is that something you are comfortable with, in pursuit of the IPv6 grail? It’s okay with you that this policy prevents small companies from growing? Regards, Mike From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 10:11 AM To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: [sig-policy] Re: New version - prop-148: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable Actually, I must disagree … If organizations having unused resources, they need to transfer them or return them to the RIR. If prices keep going high, that could encourage faster IPv6 adoption, then transfer prices will go down, up to “no value”. It takes time, but it is just market. Those that have more money, have more facilities to do a faster transition and not bother about IPv4. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 7/9/22, 16:05, "Mike Burns" <m...@iptrading.com> escribió: Hello, Per Gaurav’s statement that “only those with millions of dollars can think of getting ips”, this community should oppose this policy. Because the only way small companies can afford to get ips today is by leasing them. The same way the small company can’t afford to purchase a big office building but instead rents an office. Leasing is the only way to finance IPv4 acquisitions today. No bank or other entity that I am aware of will do it. Purchasing addresses requires full upfront payment, but leasing allow for much smaller monthly payments. If this community wants to ensure only the largest and richest companies can acquire new addresses, ban leasing. But if the community tries to ban something with such a large business motivation behind it, it will find itself struggling against a powerful foe. And for what purpose do we punish the small businesses? Leasing puts addresses in the hands of those who need them to build and operate networks. Isn’t that the primary goal of the RIR system? Regards, Mike El 2/9/22, 9:23, "Gaurav Kansal" <gaurav.kan...@nic.in> escribió: Hello everyone, In my opinion, even Trading of IPs (leave apart the lease for making dollars) in the name of transfers must be stopped. If organisation doesn’t need IPs , then those must be returned back so that smaller organisations can get it from the RIR. Currently, only the one which have millions of dollars can think of getting IPs. In today’s scenario, no one can start the Data Centre, ISP business without investing millions in IPs. Even education and research org doesn’t have an option to get IPs from RIR. This is like horse trading and isn’t a good practice for the community as a whole. Regards, Gaurav Kansal On 02-Sep-2022, at 12:20, raj...@smartlinkindia.com wrote: Dear Team, As Mr. Satoru, mentioned there are changes, but if carefully implemented in phased manner, unauthorised leasing can be stopped. For example in first phase, leasing among countries can be stopped, if the owner company doesn't provide any services beyond its home country. For example if a company in India doesn't have any operation in Singapore or Japan , can't lease resources to those companies in Singapore or Japan. This can be verified by taking business registration documents of both lease and lessor. Once this is done same may be granularized at RIR level, where in country like India, leasing can be restricted to the licensed service area for service provider within their designated service area. This may stop majority of issues, barring few exceptions. Some more brainstorming is required for better understanding and precise implementation. Regards, Rajesh Panwala For Smartlink Solutions Pvt Ltd +91-9227886001 +91-9426110781 On Fri, Sep 2, 2022, 10:44 AM Tsurumaki, Satoru <stsur...@bbix.net> wrote: Dear Colleagues, I am Satoru Tsurumaki from Japan Open Policy Forum Steering Team.. I would like to share key feedback in our community for prop-148, based on a meeting we organised on 29th Aug to discuss these proposals. Many participants support the intent of the proposal but felt that implementation would be challenging. (comment details) - It is undisputed that the current policy allows for the distribution of IP addresses according to the actual demand of one's own organization or directly connected customers, and does not allow for the leasing of IP addresses. - I think this proposal would be useful if the concept of leasing is accurately defined. - Leasing IP addresses that damage the accuracy of whois information should not be allowed, but I find it difficult to implement. Regards, Satoru Tsurumaki / JPOPF Steering Team 2022年8月26日(金) 17:27 Shaila Sharmin <shaila.sharmin....@gmail.com>: > > Dear SIG members, > > A new version of the proposal "prop-148-v002: Clarification - Leasing of > Resources is not Acceptable" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. > > Information about earlier versions is available from: > > http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-148 > > You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal: > > - Do you support or oppose the proposal? > - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear? > - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective? > > Please find the text of the proposal below. > > Regards, > Bertrand, Shaila, and Ching-Heng > APNIC Policy SIG Chairs > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > prop-148-v002: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.comAnupam) > Amrita Choudhury (amritachoudh...@ccaoi.in) > Fernando Frediani (fhfred...@gmail.com) > > > 1. Problem statement > -------------------- > RIRs have been conceived to manage, allocate and assign resources > according to need, in such a way that a LIR/ISP has addresses to be able > to directly connect its customers based on justified need. Addresses are > not, therefore, a property with which to trade or do business. > > When the justification of the need disappears or changes, for whatever > reasons, the expected thing would be to return said addresses to the > RIR, otherwise according to Section 4.1. (“The original basis of the > delegation remains valid”) and 4.1.2. (“Made for a specific purpose that > no longer exists, or based on information that is later found to be > false or incomplete”) of the policy manual, APNIC is not enforced to > renew the license. An alternative is to transfer these resources using > the appropriate transfer policy. > > If the leasing of addresses is authorized, contrary to the original > spirit of the policies and the very existence of the RIRs, the link > between connectivity and addresses disappears, which also poses security > problems, since, in the absence of connectivity, the resource holder who > has received the license to use the addresses does not have immediate > physical control to manage/filter them, which can cause damage to the > entire community. > > Therefore, it should be made explicit in the Policies that the Internet > Resources should not be leased “per se”, but only as part of a direct > connectivity service. > > The existing policies of APNIC are not explicit about that, however > current policies do not regard the leasing of addresses as acceptable, > if they are not an integral part of a connectivity service. > Specifically, the justification of the need would not be valid for those > blocks of addresses whose purpose is not to directly connect customers > of an LIR/ISP, and consequently the renewal of the annual license for > the use of the addresses would not be valid either. Sections 3.2.6. > (Address ownership), 3.2.7. (Address stockpiling) and 3.2.8. > (Reservations not supported) of the policy manual, are keys on this > issue, but an explicit clarification is required. > > > 2. Objective of policy change > ----------------------------- > Despite the fact that the intention in this regard underlies the entire > Policy Manual text and is thus applied to justify the need for > resources, this proposal makes this aspect explicit by adding the > appropriate clarifying text. > > > 3. Situation in other regions > ----------------------------- > In other RIRs, the leasing of addresses is not authorized either and > since it is not explicit in their policy manuals either, this proposal > will be presented as well. > > Nothing is currently mentioned in RIPE about this and it is not > acceptable as a justification of the need. In AFRINIC and LACNIC, the > staff has confirmed that address leasing is not considered as valid for > the justification. In ARIN it is not considered valid as justification > of need. > > A similar proposal is under discussion in LACNIC and ARIN. > > > 4. Proposed policy solution > --------------------------- > 5.8. Leasing of Internet Number Resources > > In the case of Internet number resources delegated by APNIC or an NIR, > the justification of the need implies the need to use on their own > infrastructure and/or network connectivity services provided directly to > customers. As a result, any form of IP address leasing is unacceptable, > nor does it justify the need, if it is not part of a set of services > based, at the very least, on direct connectivity. Even for networks that > are not connected to the Internet, leasing of IP addresses is not > permitted, because such sites can request direct assignments from APNIC > or the relevant NIR and, in the case of IPv4, use private addresses or > arrange market transfers. > > APNIC may proactively investigate those cases and also initiate the > investigation in case of reports by means of a form, email address or > other means developed by APNIC. > > If any form of leasing, regardless of when the delegation has been > issued, is confirmed by an APNIC investigation, it will be considered a > policy violation and revocation may apply against any account holders > who are leasing or using them for any purposes not specified in the > initial request. > > > 5. Advantages / Disadvantages > ----------------------------- > Advantages: > Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making the policy clear. > > Disadvantages: > None. > > > 6. Impact on resource holders > ----------------------------- > None. > > > 7. References > ------------- > https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2022/ARIN_prop_308_v2/ > https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2022-2/language/en > _______________________________________________ > sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ > To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net -- -- Satoru Tsurumaki BBIX, Inc _______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net _______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net _______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
_______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net
