Resources Are Assigned in a Unique and Exclusive Capacity

Original Language Español Date Published 23/04/2019 Last Modified 23/04/2019
Last Call for Comments Period Does not apply Date Ratified Does not apply Implementation Date Does not apply
Status Under discussion Download TXT PDF XML DOCX
See other versions 1.0 (compare)

Authors

Name: Jordi Palet Martinez
Email: jordi.palet@theipv6company.com
Organization: The IPv6 Company

Name: Carlos Friacas
Email: cfriacas@fccn.pt
Organization: FCT | FCCN

Name: Fernando Frediani
Email: fhfrediani@gmail.com
Organization: -

Proposal Data

Policy Type: LACNIC
Id: LAC-2019-6
Last version: 1
Presented at: LACNIC 31 Presentations:

Summary

This purpose of this proposal is to specify that resources are assigned in an exclusive capacity, as noted in various sections of the Policy Manual.

Examples:
2.2.2. - The Internet Registry System
“The Internet registry system has been established with the aim of enforcing the objectives of exclusivity, preservation, routability and information.”

2.3.2.10. - Validity of IPv4 Address Allocations
“IPv4 address allocations are valid as long as the objectives of exclusivity, preservation, routability and information continue to be met.”

Rationale

It is important to clearly specify this, so that any potential user of the Policy Manual will know that it applies equally to all resources, that only the original recipients of assigned or allocated resources have rights over such resources, and that only the original recipients may determine whether –and when– a specific resource is used in their own network or in others. This even responds to technical reasons (typically IETF standards), as Internet resources may generally not be used simultaneously in different networks, except in the case of “anycast” uses (e.g. CDNs) which are under the administrative control of the original recipient of the resources.

Likewise, the information on record regarding where the resources are being used should be reliable, as this is one of the most important principles of an RIR.

Text

1.0 Resources Are Assigned in a Unique and Exclusive Capacity

LACNIC assigns Internet resources in a unique and exclusive capacity. Standards do not allow simultaneous or duplicate uses of the same resource on different networks that are under different administrative control, except for explicit cases such as anycast.

Therefore, only the original recipient may decide that such resources will be used in other networks and/or under the administrative control of a different entity, in strict observance of the policies in force and maintaining the consistency of the registry information.

Additional Information

The author believes that this proposal should become a new section of the Policy Manual, possibly located before the appendixes. However, given their editorial nature, the exact position and numbering will be left up to the LACNIC staff.

Timetable

-

References

Other RIRs are working on similar proposals. If necessary, equivalent proposals will be presented in each one.

Public Comments by LACNIC Staff

LACNIC STAFF´S IMPACT ANALYSIS - Proposal LAC-2019-6 - versión 1

LACNIC Staff's Interpretation of the Proposal
---------------------------------------------

Applicability
-------------
This proposal would apply to organizations using resources assigned by LACNIC.

Modifications to the current text
---------------------------------
This proposal would add subsection “1.8. Resources Are Assigned in a Unique and Exclusive Capacity” within Policy Manual section “1. Definitions.” Subsequent subsections would be re-numbered.

LACNIC assigns Internet resources in a unique and exclusive capacity. Standards do not allow simultaneous or duplicate uses of the same resource on different networks that are under different administrative control, except for explicit cases such as anycast.

Therefore, only the original recipient may decide that such resources will be used in other networks and/or under the administrative control of a different entity, in strict observance of the policies in force and maintaining the consistency of the registry information.

LACNIC Staff Comments
--------------------------
1. The text currently in the Manual is included in the section corresponding to IPv4 policies.
“2.2.2. The Internet Registry System
The Internet registry system has been established with the aim of enforcing the objectives of exclusivity, preservation, routability and information.
2.3.2.10. Validity of IPv4 Address Allocations
IPv4 address allocations are valid as long as the objectives of exclusivity, preservation, routability and information continue to be met.”

2. An organization to which certain resources were not assigned and which uses such resources without the consent of their recipient would be in breach of this policy and would cause the resources to be revoked. This would affect the organization to which the resources were indeed assigned, in this case, the victim.

3. LACNIC would be able to verify that the numbers are unique in its database but would not be able to guarantee that a receiving organization does not use these resources more than once.

4. As for the text stating that “only the original recipient [of the resources] may decide that such resources will be used in other networks and/or under the administrative control of a different entity...” LACNIC understands that the way to prove that the original recipient of a resource has decided that the resource is to be used in different networks and/or under the administrative control of a different entity is by registering the corresponding sub-delegation in the LACNIC database. Likewise, it is important to note that up to fifteen /24 blocks may be sub-assigned to a third party with prior authorization from LACNIC (as stated in section 2.3.2.12.1. Assignment Window).

Recommendations
---------------------------
1. LACNIC staff interprets that the term “use of a resource” includes:
a. A resource published via BGP from the network that received the resource;
b. A block re-assigned in LACNIC's whois to a client of the receiving organization.

Impact of the policy on the registry system and address management
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposal would not require any changes to the registration system.

Privacy Policy