Mailing List Archive

Nice work Ron
https://krebsonsecurity.com/2021/01/ddos-guard-to-forfeit-internet-space-occ
upied-by-parler/






<https://www.engardesecurite.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/main1-1-214x300.g
if>


Jean St-Laurent

CISSP #634103




ddosTest me security inc


tel: <tel:+14388069800> 438 806-9800


site: <https://ddostest.me/> https://ddostest.me


email: <mailto:jean@ddostest.me> jean@ddostest.me
RE: Nice work Ron [ In reply to ]
I should have probably add more content or a comment.



I feel this is a good example that a pen is mightier than a sword.



I am impress by what I read in this article and would definitely like to
hear/read more, maybe coming from Ronald Guilmette?



Thanks all


Jean





From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+jean=ddostest.me@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Jean
St-Laurent via NANOG
Sent: January 21, 2021 12:17 PM
To: 'NANOG' <nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: Nice work Ron



https://krebsonsecurity.com/2021/01/ddos-guard-to-forfeit-internet-space-occ
upied-by-parler/








Jean St-Laurent

CISSP #634103




ddosTest me security inc


tel: <tel:+14388069800> 438 806-9800


site: <https://ddostest.me/> https://ddostest.me


email: <mailto:jean@ddostest.me> jean@ddostest.me
Re: Nice work Ron [ In reply to ]
I'll add that after reading the article, it doesn't appear that Parler was
specifically targeted, just DDoS-Guard prior to becoming their new host.
Deplatforming of Parler wasn't really on anyone's radar back in November
when the complaint with LACNIC was filed and I'm not under the impression
they had lined DDoS-Guard up as a backup host at this point, or their
downtime would have been much less after Amazon gave them the boot; still,
they almost certainly would have been very tight lipped about who that
provider would be.

It just seemed like a convenient coincidence that Parler has since become a
customer and will be inconvenienced by this, the extent to which is not
likely to be very high as they've probably re-written any modules of their
backend that weren't portable, and now have some experience with finding
and deploying on a new host.

-Matt

On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 10:39 AM Jean St-Laurent via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
wrote:

> I should have probably add more content or a comment.
>
>
>
> I feel this is a good example that a pen is mightier than a sword.
>
>
>
> I am impress by what I read in this article and would definitely like to
> hear/read more, maybe coming from Ronald Guilmette?
>
>
>
> Thanks all
>
>
> Jean
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* NANOG <nanog-bounces+jean=ddostest.me@nanog.org> *On Behalf Of *Jean
> St-Laurent via NANOG
> *Sent:* January 21, 2021 12:17 PM
> *To:* 'NANOG' <nanog@nanog.org>
> *Subject:* Nice work Ron
>
>
>
>
> https://krebsonsecurity.com/2021/01/ddos-guard-to-forfeit-internet-space-occupied-by-parler/
>
>
>
> [image: Image removed by sender. ddosTest me Security inc]
>
> Jean St-Laurent
>
> CISSP #634103
>
>
>
> ddosTest me security inc
>
> tel: 438 806-9800 <+14388069800>
>
> site: https://ddostest.me
>
> email: jean@ddostest.me
>
>
>
>
>


--
Matt Erculiani
ERCUL-ARIN
Re: Nice work Ron [ In reply to ]
Peace,

On Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 8:17 PM Jean St-Laurent via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
wrote:

>
> https://krebsonsecurity.com/2021/01/ddos-guard-to-forfeit-internet-space-occupied-by-parler/
>

A disclaimer:
- Standing for the sanity of the Internet routing;
- Assuming (quite reliably) actual policy violation;
- Assuming good faith

— am I the only one to believe that (given that LACNIC had allocated an IP
block to a company that doesn't conform to the LACNIC policies) what we
urgently need to see next is the complete audit of the LACNIC operations,
so that this doesn't look like selective enforcement?

How many other Belize defuncts do they have? How many offshore countries
like Belize are there in the region?

--
Töma
Re: Nice work Ron [ In reply to ]
DDOS-Guard is only hosting a temporary static page for Parler, they are not
hosting the full Parler application. (Source : Quote from Parler's CEO,
NYT, 1/19/21,
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/19/technology/parler-russian-company.html)

On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 12:55 PM Matt Erculiani <merculiani@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I'll add that after reading the article, it doesn't appear that Parler was
> specifically targeted, just DDoS-Guard prior to becoming their new host.
> Deplatforming of Parler wasn't really on anyone's radar back in November
> when the complaint with LACNIC was filed and I'm not under the impression
> they had lined DDoS-Guard up as a backup host at this point, or their
> downtime would have been much less after Amazon gave them the boot; still,
> they almost certainly would have been very tight lipped about who that
> provider would be.
>
> It just seemed like a convenient coincidence that Parler has since become
> a customer and will be inconvenienced by this, the extent to which is not
> likely to be very high as they've probably re-written any modules of their
> backend that weren't portable, and now have some experience with finding
> and deploying on a new host.
>
> -Matt
>
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 10:39 AM Jean St-Laurent via NANOG <
> nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
>
>> I should have probably add more content or a comment.
>>
>>
>>
>> I feel this is a good example that a pen is mightier than a sword.
>>
>>
>>
>> I am impress by what I read in this article and would definitely like to
>> hear/read more, maybe coming from Ronald Guilmette?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks all
>>
>>
>> Jean
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* NANOG <nanog-bounces+jean=ddostest.me@nanog.org> *On Behalf Of *Jean
>> St-Laurent via NANOG
>> *Sent:* January 21, 2021 12:17 PM
>> *To:* 'NANOG' <nanog@nanog.org>
>> *Subject:* Nice work Ron
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> https://krebsonsecurity.com/2021/01/ddos-guard-to-forfeit-internet-space-occupied-by-parler/
>>
>>
>>
>> [image: Image removed by sender. ddosTest me Security inc]
>>
>> Jean St-Laurent
>>
>> CISSP #634103
>>
>>
>>
>> ddosTest me security inc
>>
>> tel: 438 806-9800 <+14388069800>
>>
>> site: https://ddostest.me
>>
>> email: jean@ddostest.me
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Matt Erculiani
> ERCUL-ARIN
>
Re: Nice work Ron [ In reply to ]
>
> am I the only one to believe that (given that LACNIC had allocated an IP
> block to a company that doesn't conform to the LACNIC policies) what we
> urgently need to see next is the complete audit of the LACNIC operations,
> so that this doesn't look like selective enforcement?
>

LACNIC received a complaint, they investigated that complaint, found it
warranted, and took appropriate action. "Selective enforcement" would imply
there have been other complaints filed with LACNIC that have been ignored.

On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 1:25 PM Töma Gavrichenkov <ximaera@gmail.com> wrote:

> Peace,
>
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 8:17 PM Jean St-Laurent via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> https://krebsonsecurity.com/2021/01/ddos-guard-to-forfeit-internet-space-occupied-by-parler/
>>
>
> A disclaimer:
> - Standing for the sanity of the Internet routing;
> - Assuming (quite reliably) actual policy violation;
> - Assuming good faith
>
> — am I the only one to believe that (given that LACNIC had allocated an IP
> block to a company that doesn't conform to the LACNIC policies) what we
> urgently need to see next is the complete audit of the LACNIC operations,
> so that this doesn't look like selective enforcement?
>
> How many other Belize defuncts do they have? How many offshore countries
> like Belize are there in the region?
>
> --
> Töma
>
Re: Nice work Ron [ In reply to ]
Peace,

On Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 9:29 PM Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:

> am I the only one to believe that (given that LACNIC had allocated an IP
>> block to a company that doesn't conform to the LACNIC policies) what we
>> urgently need to see next is the complete audit of the LACNIC operations,
>> so that this doesn't look like selective enforcement?
>>
>
> LACNIC received a complaint, they investigated that complaint, found it
> warranted, and took appropriate action. "Selective enforcement" would imply
> there have been other complaints filed with LACNIC that have been ignored.
>

I've got a strong feeling though that Ronald Guilmette had been doing the
job LACNIC should've done, possibly long ago.

Once you define a policy, you shouldn't depend on independent investigators
to figure out the violations. You need to ensure the execution.

--
Töma

>
Re: Nice work Ron [ In reply to ]
In my recent ( last 24 months) dealings with LACNIC, they were very
thorough in validating information and enforcing documentation requirements
as we needed to modify some things after some corporate changes. Obviously
that may not be representative of all their operations, but they were quite
on the ball in making sure we (still) were who we said we were.

I think it's a tricky argument to say what LACNIC *should* or *should not*
have done. We don't know all the facts. But we all know that
fraudulent business records are used all over the world for things like
this all the time. Calling for a complete audit of LACNIC feels quite
extreme absent a pattern of issues, which doesn't seem to have been
presented.

On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 1:37 PM Töma Gavrichenkov <ximaera@gmail.com> wrote:

> Peace,
>
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 9:29 PM Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:
>
>> am I the only one to believe that (given that LACNIC had allocated an IP
>>> block to a company that doesn't conform to the LACNIC policies) what we
>>> urgently need to see next is the complete audit of the LACNIC operations,
>>> so that this doesn't look like selective enforcement?
>>>
>>
>> LACNIC received a complaint, they investigated that complaint, found it
>> warranted, and took appropriate action. "Selective enforcement" would imply
>> there have been other complaints filed with LACNIC that have been ignored.
>>
>
> I've got a strong feeling though that Ronald Guilmette had been doing the
> job LACNIC should've done, possibly long ago.
>
> Once you define a policy, you shouldn't depend on independent
> investigators to figure out the violations. You need to ensure the
> execution.
>
> --
> Töma
>
>>
Re: Nice work Ron [ In reply to ]
> On Jan 21, 2021, at 10:16 AM, Jean St-Laurent via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
>
> https://krebsonsecurity.com/2021/01/ddos-guard-to-forfeit-internet-space-occupied-by-parler/

For context, from the article:

"The pending disruption for DDoS-Guard and Parler comes compliments of Ron Guilmette, a researcher who has made it something of a personal mission to de-platform conspiracy theorist and far-right groups."


Anne

--
Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law
CEO, SuretyMail Email Reputation Certification
Dean of Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School
Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law)
Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange
Former Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS)
Re: Nice work Ron [ In reply to ]
Peace,

On Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 9:57 PM Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:

> fraudulent business records are used all over the world for things like
> this all the time. Calling for a complete audit of LACNIC feels quite
> extreme absent a pattern of issues, which doesn't seem to have been
> presented.
>

Listen, here, we basically cherry-picked an arbitrary AS and immediately
found a policy violation.

Yes, this one hosted a Web site for a terrorist organization, but there are
plenty such orgs in the world. This one was just outta luck with this.
This is what makes me worry.

--
Töma

>
Re: Nice work Ron [ In reply to ]
Hi.

Just a question "this one hosted a Web site for a terrorist
organization", which terrorist organizations web site did they host ?

---
Fredrik Holmqvist


On 2021-01-21 20:11, Töma Gavrichenkov wrote:
> Peace,
>
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 9:57 PM Tom Beecher <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:
>
>> fraudulent business records are used all over the world for things
>> like this all the time. Calling for a complete audit of LACNIC feels
>> quite extreme absent a pattern of issues, which doesn't seem to have
>> been presented.
>
> Listen, here, we basically cherry-picked an arbitrary AS and
> immediately found a policy violation.
>
> Yes, this one hosted a Web site for a terrorist organization, but
> there are plenty such orgs in the world. This one was just outta luck
> with this. This is what makes me worry.
>
> --
> Töma
>
>>
Re: Nice work Ron [ In reply to ]
    Well,

    FYI: I'm not getting getting this kind of vibe from him, more like
of an IP Space janitor.

    I'm wondering if it is a statement from Ron or the opinion of the
author of the article.

    Myself, I'm jealous of Ron for having the capacity of doing this
kind of task =D on top of his daily $$$ one.

-----
Alain Hebert ahebert@pubnix.net
PubNIX Inc.
50 boul. St-Charles
P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 6G7
Tel: 514-990-5911 http://www.pubnix.net Fax: 514-990-9443

On 1/21/21 1:59 PM, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. wrote:
>> On Jan 21, 2021, at 10:16 AM, Jean St-Laurent via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
>>
>> https://krebsonsecurity.com/2021/01/ddos-guard-to-forfeit-internet-space-occupied-by-parler/
> For context, from the article:
>
> "The pending disruption for DDoS-Guard and Parler comes compliments of Ron Guilmette, a researcher who has made it something of a personal mission to de-platform conspiracy theorist and far-right groups."
>
>
> Anne
>
> --
> Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law
> CEO, SuretyMail Email Reputation Certification
> Dean of Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School
> Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law)
> Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange
> Former Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS)
>
Re: Nice work Ron [ In reply to ]
> "The pending disruption for DDoS-Guard and Parler comes compliments of
> Ron Guilmette, a researcher who has made it something of a personal
> mission to de-platform conspiracy theorist and far-right groups."

Sounds horrible. But now that the American flag is a hate symbol not
surprising.

The real threat is new comers to the social media market creating
competition for FB/Twitter. Hopefully Parler is just the start.

- E
Re: Nice work Ron [ In reply to ]
Peace,

On Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 10:20 PM Fredrik Holmqvist / I2B <fredrik@i2b.se>
wrote:

> Just a question "this one hosted a Web site for a terrorist
> organization", which terrorist organizations web site did they host ?
>

"Hamas", until November. That was discussed before on the mailing list.

--
Töma

>
Re: Nice work Ron [ In reply to ]
> How many other Belize defuncts do they have? How many offshore countries
like Belize are there in the region?

Based on my cursory knowledge of offshore corporate registrations in
Belize, Panama and the Cayman Islands, identifying those locations which
are only mailboxes versus actual business office addresses should not be
overly complicated or difficult.

In the era of Google Street View for most major urban areas the initial
search process can be done remotely, such as when it appears that dozens of
companies occupy one street address of a very small office building.

For instance look at the company registration offices, with hundreds of
corporate entities sharing one office suite address, which were created by
Mossack Fonseca in Panama City.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mossack_Fonseca

The same principle would apply not just to LACNIC, but also to anybody who
wanted to go in detail through the number of ISPs and hosting companies
that nominally exist in Malta and Cyprus.


On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 10:25 AM Töma Gavrichenkov <ximaera@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Peace,
>
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 8:17 PM Jean St-Laurent via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> https://krebsonsecurity.com/2021/01/ddos-guard-to-forfeit-internet-space-occupied-by-parler/
>>
>
> A disclaimer:
> - Standing for the sanity of the Internet routing;
> - Assuming (quite reliably) actual policy violation;
> - Assuming good faith
>
> — am I the only one to believe that (given that LACNIC had allocated an IP
> block to a company that doesn't conform to the LACNIC policies) what we
> urgently need to see next is the complete audit of the LACNIC operations,
> so that this doesn't look like selective enforcement?
>
> How many other Belize defuncts do they have? How many offshore countries
> like Belize are there in the region?
>
> --
> Töma
>
RE: Nice work Ron [ In reply to ]
On January 21, 2021 at 12:39 nanog@nanog.org (Jean St-Laurent via NANOG) wrote:
>
> I feel this is a good example that a pen is mightier than a sword.

In all honesty have we really given the sword a chance in these cases?

--
-Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD
The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
Re: Nice work Ron [ In reply to ]
Eric Kuhnke wrote:

> Based on my cursory knowledge of offshore corporate registrations in
> Belize, Panama and the Cayman Islands, identifying those locations which
> are only mailboxes versus actual business office addresses should not be
> overly complicated or difficult.

A problem, however, is that, these days, one can perform
real business at remote locations without actual business
offices there.

Moreover, as page 28 of:

https://www.lacnic.net/innovaportal/file/1016/3/lacnic-fasciculo-infraestructura-internet-en.pdf

says:

REQUIREMENTS FOR OBTAINING AN IP ADDRESS BLOCK AND AN ASN

The organization must be legally incorporated in the LACNIC
service region.

incorporation is enough and physical presence is *NOT* required
by LACNIC.

Though there may be other reasons, the article explains:

https://krebsonsecurity.com/2021/01/ddos-guard-to-forfeit-internet-space-occupied-by-parler/

that are supposed to be given only to entities with a
physical presence in the region

Masataka Ohta

PS

I'm, anyway, glad that Ron now understand that "stealing" of IP
addresses through AFRINIC for money is a crime of fraud.
Re: Nice work Ron [ In reply to ]
No, this is not correct. LACNIC policies, state:

1.14 Principles for Proper Administration and Stewardship
The fundamental principle is to distribute unique Internet numbering resources according to the technical and operational needs of the networks currently using, or that will use, these numbering resources, allowing the sustainable growth of the Internet.

The numbering resources under the stewardship of LACNIC must be distributed among organizations legally constituted within its service region [COBERTURA] and mainly *serving networks and services operating in this region. External clients connected directly to main infrastructure located in the region are allowed.

*“Mainly” is understood to mean more than 50%.

(https://www.lacnic.net/681/2/lacnic/)

The 50% was not there before, so I submitted a "recent" policy proposal that reached consensus, so added that to make sure that we have a "clear" line of what is "mainly". Note that in LACNIC the policies are in Spanish, so the English translation, may not be "perfect".

So clearly, a resource holder needs to "have" the majority (>50%) of the services operating in the region. I think the English version is not sufficiently clear on that, but the Spanish one is accurate.

Also, the only reason why, as I explained to Ron when he contacted me about this case, it takes so long to recover resources, is because claiming for a resource is a really terrible situation. If a RIR makes a mistake, maybe there is no way back, so the RIR needs to ensure that all is very well investigated and the resource-holder has sufficient chances to clarify the situation.

The same policy proposal (https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2019-9/language/en) also did lots of changes across the entire policy manual, and the most important ones are related to section 7 (resource revocation and return):

https://www.lacnic.net/687/2/lacnic/7-resource-revocation-and-return

(look at the Spanish version, English seems not updated)

This proposal is not fully implemented yet, because it requires "automated" checking's for the policies, which will take some time to get fully implemented, and may not be possible to automate it 100%. So, for example ensuring that the IP addresses are actually (>50%) operating in the region, will be automatically detected.

If an organization get resources, say "we have a contract in a DC in Belize" to host them, and even they probe that to LANIC, but after obtaining the resources, they cancel the DC contract and use the resources outside the region, LACNIC didn't have a way to automatically verify it. Now with this policy, once fully implemented, they will have it and they will get alerts so they can manually do a verification, and if needed contact with the resource holder.

Of course, in case of non-compliance, section 7.1 of the policy, gives several chances, across 3 months, so the resource holder can either probe that there is compliance, or if they did a "mistake" they still have the opportunity to correct it.

In certain cases (such as fraud in documents), the RSA has precedence, and it can mean "no opportunity" to correct the situation, but still, the process may take 3 months, to give opportunity to the resource holder to probe it.


Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet



?El 22/1/21 9:32, "NANOG en nombre de Masataka Ohta" <nanog-bounces+jordi.palet=consulintel.es@nanog.org en nombre de mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> escribió:

Eric Kuhnke wrote:

> Based on my cursory knowledge of offshore corporate registrations in
> Belize, Panama and the Cayman Islands, identifying those locations which
> are only mailboxes versus actual business office addresses should not be
> overly complicated or difficult.

A problem, however, is that, these days, one can perform
real business at remote locations without actual business
offices there.

Moreover, as page 28 of:

https://www.lacnic.net/innovaportal/file/1016/3/lacnic-fasciculo-infraestructura-internet-en.pdf

says:

REQUIREMENTS FOR OBTAINING AN IP ADDRESS BLOCK AND AN ASN

The organization must be legally incorporated in the LACNIC
service region.

incorporation is enough and physical presence is *NOT* required
by LACNIC.

Though there may be other reasons, the article explains:

https://krebsonsecurity.com/2021/01/ddos-guard-to-forfeit-internet-space-occupied-by-parler/

that are supposed to be given only to entities with a
physical presence in the region

Masataka Ohta

PS

I'm, anyway, glad that Ron now understand that "stealing" of IP
addresses through AFRINIC for money is a crime of fraud.





**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
Re: Nice work Ron [ In reply to ]
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG wrote:

> No, this is not correct. LACNIC policies, state:

that LACNIC has contradicting statements is a problem
of LACNIC and you can not say others that the statement
of your choice is the one others must follow.

> (look at the Spanish version, English seems not updated)

If there is a reservation statement such as "English
version is just informational and not authentic" or
"Certain restrictions may apply. See xxxxx for details."
in PDF I quoted, your point could have been valid.

Moreover,

> The numbering resources under the stewardship of LACNIC must be
> distributed among organizations legally constituted within its
> service region [COBERTURA] and mainly *serving networks and services
> operating in this region. External clients connected directly to main
> infrastructure located in the region are allowed.
>
> *“Mainly” is understood to mean more than 50%.
requirement of such locality is, these days, seemingly
badly impractical and attempt to enforce it will likely
to be considered invalid.

For example, what if someone sells part of IP addresses assigned
from LACNIC to someone else performing business outside of
LACNIC region? If there is no restriction, it means locality
requirement is effectively invalidated.

Masataka Ohta
Re: Nice work Ron [ In reply to ]
Not at all.

The "top" mandate of any RIR, in terms or resource allocation, is what the policies say.

The document that you linked is just a "guide" and unfortunately, unless I missed it, the document doesn't have a "publication date", but I bet is several years old. Further to that is authored by NIC.BR, it can have mistakes. LACNIC only did the English translation.

As we all know, the policies in all the RIRs evolve. The only valid document in terms of policies, in any RIR, is the *last version* of the policy manual (or equivalent web pages).

If you look at the LACNIC policy manual at https://www.lacnic.net/680/2/lacnic/policy-manual-[v214---24_07_2020], it clearly states that the official source is the Spanish version:

"This document and/or information was originally written in Spanish, the official language of Uruguay, the country where LACNIC is legally incorporated and whose laws and regulations LACNIC must meet. Likewise, unofficial information and/or documents are also written in Spanish, as this is the language in which most of LACNIC's collaborators and officers work and communicate. We do our best to ensure that our translations are reliable and serve as a guide for our non-Spanish-speaking members. However, discrepancies may exist between the translations and the original document and/or information written in Spanish. In this case, the original text written in Spanish will always prevail."

Regarding the resource transfer that you mention, it will follow the transfer policy (2.3.2.18 - IPv4 address transfers) and there will be checks in both RIRs (source and destination), depending on the policies of each one. There is not a single answer to your example, we will need to see if is LACNIC to LACNIC (intra-RIR, and in that case the 50% usage in the region rule is sustained) or if it is from LACNIC to another RIR (inter-RIR, then it will not depend anymore on the LACNIC rules - after the transfer, but the destination RIR).



Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet



?El 22/1/21 11:37, "NANOG en nombre de Masataka Ohta" <nanog-bounces+jordi.palet=consulintel.es@nanog.org en nombre de mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> escribió:

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG wrote:

> No, this is not correct. LACNIC policies, state:

that LACNIC has contradicting statements is a problem
of LACNIC and you can not say others that the statement
of your choice is the one others must follow.

> (look at the Spanish version, English seems not updated)

If there is a reservation statement such as "English
version is just informational and not authentic" or
"Certain restrictions may apply. See xxxxx for details."
in PDF I quoted, your point could have been valid.

Moreover,

> The numbering resources under the stewardship of LACNIC must be
> distributed among organizations legally constituted within its
> service region [COBERTURA] and mainly *serving networks and services
> operating in this region. External clients connected directly to main
> infrastructure located in the region are allowed.
>
> *“Mainly” is understood to mean more than 50%.
requirement of such locality is, these days, seemingly
badly impractical and attempt to enforce it will likely
to be considered invalid.

For example, what if someone sells part of IP addresses assigned
from LACNIC to someone else performing business outside of
LACNIC region? If there is no restriction, it means locality
requirement is effectively invalidated.

Masataka Ohta



**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
Re: Nice work Ron [ In reply to ]
Peace,

On Fri, Jan 22, 2021, 12:27 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG:

> The numbering resources under the stewardship of LACNIC must be
> distributed among organizations legally constituted within its service
> region [COBERTURA] and mainly *serving networks and services operating in
> this region. External clients connected directly to main infrastructure
> located in the region are allowed.
>
> *“Mainly” is understood to mean more than 50%.
>

Just out of curiosity, I wonder what would happen if all the RIRs
implemented the same policy. What if a company does business across the
globe and any particular ICANN ASO region is only responsible e.g. of 40%
of revenue at most?

--
Töma

>
Re: Nice work Ron [ In reply to ]
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG wrote:

> Not at all.
>
> The "top" mandate of any RIR, in terms or resource allocation, is
> what the policies say.
Within LACNIC, yes, of course. LACNIC can specify some document
specifies the policy to be followed by all the employees of LACNIC.

However, that is a convention only valid locally within LACNIC.

That is, LACNIC can not enforce it to people who have looked at and
followed LACNIC statements stating otherwise.

So?

It should also be noted that you can't expect a Russian company
having some business in LACNIC region read document of LACNIC
not in English or Russian, which is why some reservation
statements I mentioned could have been essentially important.

Masataka Ohta
Re: Nice work Ron [ In reply to ]
Hi Toma,



First think to clarify: In the Spanish version, the text is (mayoría) "majority" (that's why I said the translation as mainly, to me -not a native English-, is wrong).



Note also that the original text, before my policy proposal already said the same, but didn't stated if majority is 50% or what, but in general majority is well interpreted as more than half, right?



The decision of having the resources used in one region or another depends on the RIR communities, which set the policies.



I think that multinationals are more often located in ARIN, RIPE or APNIC regions, so it is more "usual" that they get the resources from those regions, which I recall don't have that restriction. In AFRINIC is even worst (all the recourses need to be used in the region).



Last but not least, nothing excludes that a company having business in different RIR coverage areas, obtain resources from several (all) of them. This allows a company having 40% of their business in a given region and needing 40% of the resources in that region, asking in that RIR that amount, so they will have actually 100% of the requested resources in that region. Right?



Note also that at any point, the policies can change. If you/anyone really believes that's broken, a policy proposal can be sent for discussion.







El 22/1/21 12:09, "Töma Gavrichenkov" <ximaera@gmail.com> escribió:



Peace,

On Fri, Jan 22, 2021, 12:27 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG:

The numbering resources under the stewardship of LACNIC must be distributed among organizations legally constituted within its service region [COBERTURA] and mainly *serving networks and services operating in this region. External clients connected directly to main infrastructure located in the region are allowed.

*“Mainly” is understood to mean more than 50%.



Just out of curiosity, I wonder what would happen if all the RIRs implemented the same policy. What if a company does business across the globe and any particular ICANN ASO region is only responsible e.g. of 40% of revenue at most?



--

Töma



**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
Re: Nice work Ron [ In reply to ]
I think you're missing the point about what are policies in the RIRs.

Policies in each RIR are developed by the (global) community. I live in Madrid, EU, my RIR is RIPE NCC, RIPE community, however, I contribute to policy making process in all the regions (all the RIRs), even if I've no resources in any of them.

Policies are not for the RIR employees, are for *anyone* that want to apply for resources in a given RIR.

And that means that to apply for the resources you need to *read, understand and agree* with those policies. If you don't agree with the policies, then you send a policy proposal and it may be adopted by the community, but meanwhile, you're bind to it if you obtain the resources.

I agree that the document that you mention will be nicer if it has a clear publication date and a note that states "This is only a guideline valid at time of publication and may not be complete neither accurate. The actual policies apply.". However, you should note that this document has been done by NIC.BR, they are non-native Spanish, non-native English, so they may have even used the Portuguese translation of the policies, which again may be inaccurate (as far as you try to translate something from one idiom to another, always there may be missing details and inaccuracy).

(maybe there is some text like that in the document, I didn't read it word by word)

And to complement that, as I previously said ... this document is NOT an official LACNIC document in terms of policies. Is only a guideline. LACNIC only translated it.

If I publish a document in Spanish about some rules that you wrote in Japanese, and then you translate my document to Japanese even with my authorization, are you responsible of the rules set by that document or the rules that will actually apply are your original document rules?




?El 22/1/21 12:19, "NANOG en nombre de Masataka Ohta" <nanog-bounces+jordi.palet=consulintel.es@nanog.org en nombre de mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> escribió:

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG wrote:

> Not at all.
>
> The "top" mandate of any RIR, in terms or resource allocation, is
> what the policies say.
Within LACNIC, yes, of course. LACNIC can specify some document
specifies the policy to be followed by all the employees of LACNIC.

However, that is a convention only valid locally within LACNIC.

That is, LACNIC can not enforce it to people who have looked at and
followed LACNIC statements stating otherwise.

So?

It should also be noted that you can't expect a Russian company
having some business in LACNIC region read document of LACNIC
not in English or Russian, which is why some reservation
statements I mentioned could have been essentially important.

Masataka Ohta



**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
Re: Nice work Ron [ In reply to ]
Sorry to have sent uneditted text.

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG wrote:

> First think to clarify: In the Spanish version, the text is (mayoría)
> "majority" (that's why I said the translation as mainly, to me -not a
> native English-, is wrong).

I'm afraid you have already stated:

> *“Mainly” is understood to mean more than 50%.

So, do you mean "majority" can mean 50% or 40% according to your
discretion?

> Note also that the original text, before my policy proposal already
> said the same, but didn't stated if majority is 50% or what, but in
> general majority is well interpreted as more than half, right?

Are you, now, saying unreasonable request of "50%" is the requirement
and "40%" is not enough?

Masataka Ohta

1 2 3  View All