[lacnog] Subasignación de prefijos a otro ASN y el tema con los RoA

[Fernando Frediani]

Leasing is prohibited for LACNIC registered prefixes and LACNIC already 
confirmed it, either is is good or not to broker business. If you don't 
believe I invite you to publish LACNIC registered prefixes from 
organizations you have knowledge and that are currently rented to other 
ASNs so they can "have a look". And to make it more clear in AfriNic and 
APNIC regions it is also prohibited there. Even if you can point it is 
being done over there in some cases, thankfully it is prohibited.

If you dint's understand it clear my response to Salvador is to warn 
that as there is a leasing involved it cannot be used with LACNIC 
prefixes independent if there is a ROA or not. My point was not 
specifically about the ROA but about something that comes before it and 
is more important.

Fernando

Em 03/02/2022 16:48, Mike Burns escreveu:
>
> Untrue, leasing is not prohibited, if it were, there wouldn’t be sites 
> like ipxo.com.
>
> Do a google search for “ipv4 leasing” and see how prohibited it is.
>
> Fernando, can you do us the favor of pointing out where leasing is 
> prohibited in policy or law?
>
> I have already told you that advertising blocks under the ASN of 
> non-owners of the block is perfectly acceptable and commonplace among 
> cloud providers who offer “bring-your-own-addresses” services, like 
> Oracle and AWS.
>
> Salvador, you can certainly get ROAs for leased blocks, except where 
> RPKI is prohibited, as it is for ARIN legacy holders who haven’t 
> signed a registration agreement.
>
> If you need to lease blocks with an ROA, it is not difficult to find 
> lessors that will offer that.
>
> Regards,
> Mike Burns
>
> *From:* LACNOG <lacnog-bounces en lacnic.net> *On Behalf Of *Fernando 
> Frediani
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 03, 2022 2:27 PM
> *To:* lacnog en lacnic.net
> *Subject:* Re: [lacnog] Subasignación de prefijos a otro ASN y el tema 
> con los RoA
>
> Hola Salvador
>
> Como mencionaste que están involucrados brokers/renters de IP, es 
> claro que estamos hablando de arrendamiento de direcciones IP y es 
> importante aclarar algunos puntos importantes para que nadie esté 
> operando direcciones registradas en la región de LACNIC de manera 
> incorrecta. Con o sin existencia de ROAs para el prefijo en cuestión 
> *en la región de LACNIC* (y en algunas otras regiones del mundo) *no 
> se permite el arrendamiento o préstamo de direcciones IP de un ASN a 
> otro*.
>
> Independiente el motivo, ya sea por escasez de direcciones IPv4 o por 
> otro, no está permitido arrendamiento y no es correcto que una ASN 
> alquile direcciones registradas en la región LACNIC a otra ASN.
> Incluso se pueden utilizar prefijos registrados en otras regiones que 
> lo permitan, pero no los registrados en la región de LACNIC.
>
> Las únicas 2 formas de lidiar con este problema aquí son el proceso de 
> Transferencias de prefijos de un ASN a otro de manera definitiva (que 
> puede ser facilitado por un intermediario) o con mayor uso de IPv6 y 
> menor dependencia de IPv4.
> Por lo tanto, incluso si la propuesta de política LAC-2020-10 llega a 
> un consenso, no podría usarse para los prefijos de la región de LACNIC 
> si se están arrendando a otra ASN.
>
> Los ASN quien hizo sus prefijos registrados per LACNIC estén 
> disponibles para alquiler a través de un intermediario corren el 
> riesgo de caer en el proceso de recuperación.
>
> Fernando
>
> Em 03/02/2022 15:31, Salvador Bertenbreiter escreveu:
>
>     Hola a todos,
>
>     Espero estén bien, hay un tema sobre el cual me gustaría iniciar
>     la conversación, IP brokers/renters y certificados RoA.
>
>     Due to the exhaustion of IPv4 blocks, new ISPs that are getting
>     their ASN and IPv6 block in LACNIC are needed to obtain at least
>     one IPv4 /24 block with an IP broker (or similar). Because even if
>     they are delivering IPv6 addressing to their clients, they still
>     need even a /24 to raise bgp in IPv4 and then do CG-NAT for that
>     traffic.
>
>     The problem I see is that most, at least of the several I've had
>     contact with, of IP brokers (and international carriers that
>     undersign IPs) are not offering to issue a RoA for prefixes that
>     they sub-assign to another ASN, which I think is a problem as it
>     breaks the path to greater adoption of RPKI. How do you think this
>     situation could be improved/solved?
>
>      Saludos,
>
>     Salvador
>
>     _______________________________________________
>
>     LACNOG mailing list
>
>     LACNOG en lacnic.net
>
>     https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog
>
>     Cancelar suscripcion:https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/options/lacnog
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LACNOG mailing list
> LACNOG en lacnic.net
> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog
> Cancelar suscripcion:https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/options/lacnog
------------ próxima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <https://mail.lacnic.net/pipermail/lacnog/attachments/20220203/3ad456d9/attachment.htm>