Seen this?: (Was: IP Broker for -1.-1.-1.-1)
Hi, seems like it has begun... :( (I don't probably need to remind here on this list, that this behavior is against the RIPE policy...) I personally (no hat) would propose that RIPE performs an discreet investigation, asking for references (as in "References from our many existing lessor companies are available upon request.") and returning those blocks into the pool when abuse is detected. Regards, Ondrej Sury Begin forwarded message:
From: "IP Brokerage" <info@anonymized-don't-want-to-spread-contact-me-offlist-if-you-need-original> Subject: IP Broker for -1.-1.-1.-1 Date: 17. října 2012 18:52:24 GMT+02:00 Reply-To: info@xxx
Confidential For: XXXXXXXXX
We are contacting you to participate in a bidding process for the lease or potential sale of IPv4 address space. IPv4 is transitioning and will soon be replaced by IPv6. We encourage you to take this opportunity to monetize your IPv4 assets before they become obsolete.
RxxxMxxxxx_IP is currently seeking to enter into direct lease agreements for large netblocks of currently unused IP space. We pay market lease rates via wire transfer and are accustomed to closing transactions quickly. Our lease of your IP space will be governed by a customary Service Level Agreement (SLA) and no abusive practices will be permitted or tolerated. References from our many existing lessor companies are available upon request.
Leasing your excess IPv4 space allows you to generate income, while retaining ownership of your IPv4 allocations for future use or ultimate sale.
If your organization (XXXXXXXX) has an underperforming IPv4 subnet, such as -1.-1.-1.-1 or some other range of any size, and you are interested in monetizing this asset immediately, for any duration or terms, please contact me or complete the RFP (request for proposal) questionnaire below and return it to my attention at info@xxxxxx.
Thank you for your participation in our RFP process, and please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
I am interested in monetizing my IPv4 Assets:
Company Name: Size or number of IPs available for lease: Identify Range (CIDR): email: Phone number: Proposed start date for lease:
RxxxMxxxx_IP is also actively engaged in buying and selling IP address space. Please let us know if this is of interest to you as well.
John Blank Business Development RxxxMxxxxx_IP Of . xxx.xxx.xxx Sk . xxxxxx
-- Ondřej Surý -- Chief Science Officer ------------------------------------------- CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. -- Laboratoře CZ.NIC Americka 23, 120 00 Praha 2, Czech Republic mailto:ondrej.sury@nic.cz http://nic.cz/ tel:+420.222745110 fax:+420.222745112 -------------------------------------------
Hi, On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 01:59:40PM +0200, Ond??ej Surý wrote:
seems like it has begun... :(
(I don't probably need to remind here on this list, that this behavior is against the RIPE policy...)
Is it?
I personally (no hat) would propose that RIPE performs an discreet investigation, asking for references (as in "References from our many existing lessor companies are available upon request.") and returning those blocks into the pool when abuse is detected.
Transferring address blocks to those in need and receiving monetary compensation in exchange is *not* against RIPE policies. To the contrary, it is expected that the transfers are registered with the RIPE NCC so people know who currently "owns"(*) an address block. Gert Doering -- APWG chair (*) "holds the right to use it" -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Hi, On 18. 10. 2012, at 15:43, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 01:59:40PM +0200, Ond??ej Surý wrote:
seems like it has begun... :(
(I don't probably need to remind here on this list, that this behavior is against the RIPE policy...)
Is it?
I personally (no hat) would propose that RIPE performs an discreet investigation, asking for references (as in "References from our many existing lessor companies are available upon request.") and returning those blocks into the pool when abuse is detected.
Transferring address blocks to those in need and receiving monetary compensation in exchange is *not* against RIPE policies.
To the contrary, it is expected that the transfers are registered with the RIPE NCC so people know who currently "owns"(*) an address block.
The email/proposition talks about "leases", and not transfers. And if I remember correctly you should return unused blocks and not lease them, don't you? O.
Gert Doering -- APWG chair
(*) "holds the right to use it" -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-- Ondřej Surý -- Chief Science Officer ------------------------------------------- CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. -- Laboratoře CZ.NIC Americka 23, 120 00 Praha 2, Czech Republic mailto:ondrej.sury@nic.cz http://nic.cz/ tel:+420.222745110 fax:+420.222745112 -------------------------------------------
Hi, On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 03:45:01PM +0200, Ond??ej Surý wrote:
Transferring address blocks to those in need and receiving monetary compensation in exchange is *not* against RIPE policies.
To the contrary, it is expected that the transfers are registered with the RIPE NCC so people know who currently "owns"(*) an address block.
The email/proposition talks about "leases", and not transfers.
Transfers can be temporary.
And if I remember correctly you should return unused blocks and not lease them, don't you?
You are certainly welcome to return unsed blocks to the RIPE NCC, but you do not *have* to - the policies for allocations do not require that (and there is no provision for the NCC to forcibly take them back either), that's only for assignments. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Hi Gert, On 18. 10. 2012, at 15:48, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 03:45:01PM +0200, Ond??ej Surý wrote:
Transferring address blocks to those in need and receiving monetary compensation in exchange is *not* against RIPE policies.
To the contrary, it is expected that the transfers are registered with the RIPE NCC so people know who currently "owns"(*) an address block.
The email/proposition talks about "leases", and not transfers.
Transfers can be temporary.
I see nothing about temporary transfers in 5.5 of IPv5 policy. The leases would best fit under "sub-allocations", but that's just for downstream network operators (and I read that as BGP downstreams, not a random entity on the net). Also the transfers has to be approved by RIPE NCC, so you cannot ensure it's "temporary", because you can be denied the transfer-back. Correct me if I read the policy in a wrong way.
And if I remember correctly you should return unused blocks and not lease them, don't you?
You are certainly welcome to return unsed blocks to the RIPE NCC, but you do not *have* to - the policies for allocations do not require that (and there is no provision for the NCC to forcibly take them back either), that's only for assignments.
True, that was just my thinking about being a good "netizen", but it's not covered in the policy. Anyway I still think the leases are not in the line with the current policy. O. -- Ondřej Surý -- Chief Science Officer ------------------------------------------- CZ.NIC, z.s.p.o. -- Laboratoře CZ.NIC Americka 23, 120 00 Praha 2, Czech Republic mailto:ondrej.sury@nic.cz http://nic.cz/ tel:+420.222745110 fax:+420.222745112 -------------------------------------------
Hi Ondřej,
I see nothing about temporary transfers in 5.5 of IPv5 policy.
It's in the third paragraph: 'Re-allocation must be reflected in the RIPE Database. This re-allocation may be on either a permanent or non-permanent basis.'
The leases would best fit under "sub-allocations", but that's just for downstream network operators (and I read that as BGP downstreams, not a random entity on the net).
That is exactly what Alexey Ivanov (LeaderTelecom) is discussing on this very list.
Also the transfers has to be approved by RIPE NCC, so you cannot ensure it's "temporary", because you can be denied the transfer-back.
No, handing back the addresses to the original holder is not a separate transfer. It's just the end of the original transfer.
Correct me if I read the policy in a wrong way.
I hope I have :-)
True, that was just my thinking about being a good "netizen", but it's not covered in the policy.
Anyway I still think the leases are not in the line with the current policy.
Using the label 'lease' might be a but confusing, but if they use the transfer policy with a temporary transfer it does fit. It would be helpful to have consistent naming for these things though. Met vriendelijke groet, Sander Steffann
On Oct 18, 2012, at 10:34 AM, Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> wrote:
...
True, that was just my thinking about being a good "netizen", but it's not covered in the policy.
Anyway I still think the leases are not in the line with the current policy.
Using the label 'lease' might be a but confusing, but if they use the transfer policy with a temporary transfer it does fit. It would be helpful to have consistent naming for these things though.
Just FYI - In the ARIN region, this issue is presently undefined, i.e. the current policy manual does not take a position either way with regards to subassignments of IP addresses to another party on a temporary basis and/or independent of network services. New address space is issued based on stated plans that it be used for network service customers (if an ISP) or one's own network (if an end-user), but that only applies to issuance of new resources in good faith - there has not been any policy development which establishing clear requirements in this area for existing address holders. See attached email for specifics; I have no view in the discussion of this topic in the RIPE region but provide this only as a data point that may be of interest. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN Begin forwarded message:
From: John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> Subject: [arin-ppml] Leasing (was: Re: IPv4 Update) Date: August 22, 2012 9:18:33 PM EDT To: Enrique Garcia <Enrique.Garcia@sidera.net> Cc: "arin-ppml@arin.net" <arin-ppml@arin.net>
On Aug 22, 2012, at 9:58 AM, Enrique Garcia <Enrique.Garcia@sidera.net> wrote:
I received an e-mail this morning from a company claiming that IP Space can now be leased.
Was just wondering if this was legal.
Enrique -
If by "legal", you mean "in compliance with the community number resource management policy in this region", then perhaps I can provide some insight.
Internet service providers routinely provide IP address assignments as part of their Internet services bundle, and those assignments are not permanent in nature but only for the duration of the service agreement. Many would consider such assignments to be "leased IP address space".
Organizations receiving IP address space (as the recipient of a transfer or via allocations of IP address space from the free pool) as an ISP must meet the LIR definition (per NRPM 2.4) and that means "primarily assigning address space to the users of the network services that it provides." End-users receiving transfers or assignments of IP address space from the free pool must meet the End-user definition (per NRPM 2.6) during their request which requires they be receiving space to be used "exclusively for use in its operational networks."
Ergo, the "leasing" of recently received space could reasonably raise concern about whether the request to ARIN for that space was made with full sincerity, and organizations would be advised not to request to receive IP address from the free pool or as the recipient of a transfer if their intent is to "lease" the space rather then use it for their network service customers (if an ISP) or use it for their own network (if they applied as an end-user.)
There has been no policy development specifically regarding leasing as an appropriate/inappropriate use of held IP address space, so ARIN does not have a position either way (aside from the case above of insuring that requests to receive additional address space are made in good faith based on existing definitions of usage.) Obviously, individual Internet service providers may have their own views on handling of "leased" address space, depending on any number of factors including registrant and block size.
I hope this helps somewhat in understanding the situation, recognizing that it is not likely to be as complete an answer as you would have liked.
Thanks! /John
John Curran President and CEO ARIN _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact info@arin.net if you experience any issues.
From: address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Ondrej Surý (I don't probably need to remind here on this list, that this behavior is against the RIPE policy...) [Milton L Mueller] should it be?
participants (5)
-
Gert Doering -
John Curran -
Milton L Mueller -
Ondřej Surý -
Sander Steffann