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

[Rubens Kuhl]

On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 6:43 PM Mike Burns <mike en iptrading.com> wrote:
>
> Rubens,
>
> I hardly know whether you are being serious.

100% serious.


> Yes, IP registrations are public, but the use of them is not.

Bogus again. Some examples of why this is not true:
https://ftp.lacnic.net/pub/stats/lacnic/delegated-lacnic-latest
https://ftp.registro.br/pub/numeracao/origin/nicbr-asn-blk-latest.txt

Every allocation in Latin America, with precise information on who it
is allocated to.
BTW, this requirement is 1.14.2 in the LACNIC policy manual.


> I think your request to publish my clients' leased blocks borders on
> ridiculous.

Translation: they are doing wrong and in big trouble if someone finds them.

> If you persist in believing that only legacy addresses can be leased, you
> will probably be informed by people other than me that you are wrong.

Guess what ? No private emails or instant messages on this subject
since I posted here.


> Why don't you point to the actual words in the RIR policies or contracts
> that make you so sure of your beliefs?
> I have asked over and over, but hear crickets from your side.

https://registro.br/tecnologia/numeracao/contrato/
8.1.e (actually 9.1.e)
"(...) or when requestor no longer show the needs justifying allocation"

This is what a requestor submitted, and if that doesn't hold up, the
block can be clawed back.


> The staff of every RIR monitors these lists and I think if any of them had
> evidence supporting yours' and Fernando's  contentions that they would speak
> up to correct misinformation you think I am providing.

No, they wouldn't. And I know that because I happen to work with them,
even though in a different resource registry. They would only act on
tangible information, as I would in the domains area.

BTW, this is a LACNOG list, not a LACNIC list and people can have
their wrong opinions, and LACNIC may or may not answer them.

> You are free to disbelieve me, to think that all the many IPv4 lessors on
> the Internet are breaking law and policy, that only legacy can be leased,
> that ROAs are not available to lessees. But you are wrong and will learn
> that from others unless I miss my guess.

You are trying to add the ROA issue to a list that doesn't belong.
Leased IP blocks can have ROAs, provided their lessor takes the steps
to allow it. This is why I mentioned this to be a market issue, not a
policy issue. The same happens with IRR registrations: the free IRRs
used by most LAC networks, LACNIC and TC, do not allow leased blocks
so any good lessor needs to also include a RADB entry in the mix.

What I can tell you is that every time I saw a leased IP block, I
looked up and it was a legacy one. The moment I see one from a RIR
allocation, I will promptly raise that with the RIR in question.  And
the likely outcome of that will not be positive for that user.



Rubens