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

Rubens Kuhl rubensk en gmail.com
Jue Feb 3 19:23:47 -03 2022


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


Más información sobre la lista de distribución LACNOG