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

Mike Burns mike en iptrading.com
Jue Feb 3 19:50:46 -03 2022

Hi Rubens,

I apologize for mixing LACNIC and LACNOG.
You posted something from Brazil.
As far as I know Brazil has had a law requiring addresses utilized in Brazil
to be registered at NIC.br.
This is fairly unique, possibly only China also has this requirement as far
as I know.
Nonetheless this is not a policy requirement of LACNIC.
LACNIC assignments will not reveal LACNIC lessees, whose assignments may be
done at another RIR.

And the original question regarded the availability of ROAs for leased
ROAs for leased addresses are available for both legacy and non-legacy
Leased addresses do not have to be legacy.
Only in ARIN do legacy addresses need to sign an RSA before they can offer
RPKI, by the way.

I would wait a bit for the private messages, but I am sure you will learn
that leased addresses do not have to be legacy and leasing addresses is not
against policy in ARIN, RIPE, or APNIC.

LACNIC and AFRINIC alone among the RIRs have maintained in their RSAs the
ability to revoke for utilization outside the original justification, or for
lack of utilization.  Likely this is one of the causes of Latin America's
very small transfer market. AFRINIC hasn't run out completely yet, so their
market is non-existent. The other trading RIRs understood that maintaining
this revocation ability runs counter to a functioning IPv4 market. 

And the revocation ability is the reason for confusion about leasing. My
advice is to lease from a lessor in ARIN, APNIC, or RIPE, ask for an ROA not
just an LOA. Carriers are more likely to accept an ROA than an LOA, which I
take to be a good thing.


-----Original Message-----
From: LACNOG <lacnog-bounces en lacnic.net> On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2022 5:24 PM
To: Latin America and Caribbean Region Network Operators Group
<lacnog en lacnic.net>
Subject: Re: [lacnog] Subasignación de prefijos a otro ASN y el tema con los

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:

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.

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.

LACNOG mailing list
LACNOG en lacnic.net
Cancelar suscripcion: https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/options/lacnog

Más información sobre la lista de distribución LACNOG