Lu Heng on Internet Governance: Coordination, Portability and Network Continuity

Internet governance is often discussed through institutions, policy processes and international forums.

Lu Heng approaches the subject from another direction: what must Internet coordination systems do so that independently operated networks can remain unique, interoperable, secure and operational?

As the founder of LARUS and an active participant in Internet number-resource discussions, Lu has focused much of his work on the relationship between:

• Internet number registries;
• IPv4 scarcity;
• resource portability;
• routing security;
• registry resilience;
• operator independence; and
• network continuity.

His central argument is not that Internet registries are unnecessary.

It is that shared coordination should remain strong where interoperability requires it, while unnecessary concentration of commercial or operational authority should be avoided.

The Internet needs coordination. It does not need every layer of the Internet to be controlled by the same institution.

This article explains Lu Heng's Internet-governance perspective and how it connects to IPv4 markets, Regional Internet Registries, portability and the continuity of running networks.

Lu Heng on Internet Governance: Quick Answer

Lu Heng's approach to Internet governance can be summarised around several ideas:

• Internet number registries perform necessary coordination functions.
• Registry coordination should not automatically be equated with ownership or complete operational control.
• Legal rights, registry state, routing authorisation and operational use should be analysed separately.
• Common compulsory rules should focus on what independently operated networks genuinely need for interoperability.
• IPv4 portability can become important when addresses form part of long-term network identity.
• Registry continuity should focus on preserving critical functions rather than institutional permanence for its own sake.
• Administrative disputes should not unnecessarily interrupt legitimate running networks.
• Network operators should retain meaningful control over their own routing and infrastructure.

Some of these ideas describe Lu Heng's own governance proposals.

They should not be interpreted as universally adopted Internet policy.

For a broader neutral introduction to the existing Internet-governance ecosystem, read Internet Governance: What It Is, How It Works and Who Shapes the Internet .

Who Is Lu Heng?

Lu Heng is the founder of LARUS and has worked for more than a decade across Internet infrastructure, IPv4 resource markets and Internet number-resource governance.

His work combines several perspectives that are often discussed separately:

• commercial IPv4 markets;
• Internet number-resource registration;
• network operations;
• routing;
• RPKI;
• governance institutions;
• resource portability; and
• business continuity.

Through LARUS and related initiatives, Lu has participated in discussions across the Regional Internet Registry ecosystem and broader Internet-governance forums.

His governance work increasingly asks a practical infrastructure question:

Which functions genuinely need global or regional coordination, and which decisions can safely remain with independent network operators?

Internet Governance Is Not a Single Hierarchy

No single organisation controls the entire Internet.

Instead, different organisations perform different roles.

Lu Heng's governance perspective starts from this distributed architecture.

Different functions can require different forms of authority.

Four Layers of Internet Number-Resource Control

A recurring problem in IPv4 governance discussions is that several different forms of authority are treated as though they were the same.

Lu's framework separates them:

legal and commercial rights → registry state → routing authorisation → operational use

The layers influence one another.

But they should not be collapsed.

A registry record is not automatically a property judgment.

An RPKI ROA expresses routing authorisation, not every legal right associated with a resource.

A BGP announcement shows operational routing state, not necessarily contractual authority.

Internet governance becomes clearer when each layer is evaluated according to the function it actually performs.

The Role of Regional Internet Registries

Regional Internet Registries perform important Internet infrastructure functions.

These include, depending on the registry and resource:

• number-resource registration;
• allocation and assignment processes;
• transfer processing;
• RDAP and Whois services;
• RPKI;
• reverse DNS;
• organisation and contact information; and
• related coordination services.

These functions help preserve uniqueness and provide common information across independently operated networks.

Lu Heng's position should therefore not be described as opposition to Regional Internet Registries themselves.

His question is about scope:

Which forms of authority are genuinely required for number-resource coordination, and which decisions can remain outside the compulsory registry layer?

Thin Coordination Does Not Mean Weak Coordination

Lu Heng has argued for a relatively thin common coordination layer.

Thin does not mean unimportant.

A thin but strong coordination system can still protect:

• resource uniqueness;
• accurate registry information;
• legible changes in resource relationships;
• contactability;
• fraud resistance;
• routing-security assertions;
• technical interoperability; and
• operational continuity.

The distinction is about scope rather than strength.

A coordination institution can be strong within a narrow mandate without needing authority over every adjacent commercial decision.

Running-Code Primacy

One of Lu Heng's more recent governance proposals is Running-Code Primacy.

Running-Code Primacy is a proposed framework, not an established universal Internet policy.

Its central test is:

Does this compulsory rule protect something that independently operated networks actually require to remain interoperable, secure and operational?

Under this framework, stronger justification exists for common rules involving:

• unique identifiers;
• minimum coordination semantics;
• accurate resource state;
• proof of relevant control;
• routing-security assertions;
• fraud resistance; and
• routing-adjacent continuity.

Decisions that primarily concern commercial strategy, pricing, customer relationships or operator architecture may not require the same common compulsory layer.

Minimum Common Rules and Local Operator Decisions

Running-Code Primacy also distinguishes between rules that must be common and decisions that can remain local.

For example:

• a common system may define how a route-origin authorisation is expressed;
• a network can decide how that information affects its local routing policy;
• a registry can maintain accurate number-resource records;
• a network operator can determine its own architecture and upstream relationships;
• a common system can require meaningful contactability;
• commercial parties can negotiate their own service structure.

Common where interoperability requires it. Local where independent operators can safely decide.

Why IPv4 Scarcity Changed the Governance Debate

IPv4 governance developed significantly during an era in which distribution of previously unallocated resources was an important registry function.

Exhaustion changed that environment.

Existing IPv4 resources increasingly move through:

• transfers;
• leases;
• mergers and acquisitions;
• corporate restructuring;
• cloud deployment;
• BYOIP;
• provider migration; and
• secondary-market transactions.

That creates a different governance environment.

Registry systems are increasingly coordinating changes involving resources that may already support customers, routes, contracts and production services.

Lu argues that governance models need to recognise this distinction.

Free-Pool Distribution and Transferred Resources Are Different

Rules used to distribute previously unallocated address space do not necessarily answer every question involving already-deployed resources.

Transferred resources can already involve:

• commercial agreements;
• customers;
• established BGP routes;
• RPKI;
• IRR records;
• reverse DNS;
• external allowlists;
• business integrations; and
• long-term network identity.

This makes continuity and accurate representation increasingly important.

Why Lu Heng Argues for IP Address Portability

Portability is another major part of Lu Heng's Internet-governance thinking.

Public IP addresses can become embedded in:

• customer allowlists;
• APIs;
• firewalls;
• VPNs;
• banking systems;
• payment integrations;
• security platforms;
• partner networks; and
• compliance documentation.

Once this happens, an address can become part of an organisation's operational network identity.

Changing the address may then require coordination with organisations the network operator does not control.

From this perspective, portability is not merely a convenience.

It can become a resilience issue.

Where technically and contractually possible, changing an unrelated infrastructure provider should not automatically require changing a long-established public network identity.

Portability Does Not Mean Ignoring Coordination

Portability should not be interpreted as unlimited mobility without regard for technical or administrative requirements.

Factors such as:

• routing scale;
• security;
• registry accuracy;
• contracts;
• resource status;
• RPKI;
• reverse DNS; and
• operational feasibility

still matter.

The policy question is whether unnecessary restrictions create avoidable lock-in beyond what those technical requirements demand.

Registry Region and Network Geography Are Different Concepts

The five RIRs operate through defined service regions.

These regions are important for organising registry services, membership and policy development.

Lu Heng has argued that an RIR service region should not automatically be treated as geographic ownership of the Internet number resources associated with that registry.

Registry region alone does not determine:

• where a prefix may be routed;
• where all customers must be located;
• where infrastructure must be deployed;
• where the resource has economic value; or
• every legal right surrounding the resource.

Registry region describes an administrative coordination relationship. Network operation remains global.

Registry State Should Reflect Legitimate Operational Reality

Lu Heng's approach places significant emphasis on the accuracy of registry information.

Criticising overbroad registry authority does not mean registry records should become less important.

On the contrary, registry records become more valuable when they accurately describe relevant resource relationships.

Those relationships may involve:

• transfers;
• corporate succession;
• resource holders;
• operational users;
• routing relationships;
• technical contacts;
• abuse contacts; and
• security assertions.

A registry record should describe an important coordination state. It should not be confused with the source of every underlying right.

IPv4 Leasing and Operational Delegation

IPv4 leasing provides a useful example of why these layers matter.

In a leasing relationship:

• one organisation may carry the underlying resource relationship;
• a provider may deliver the commercial service;
• the customer may operate the network;
• the customer's ASN may originate the prefix;
• RPKI and IRR may need to reflect the routing arrangement; and
• external systems may eventually depend on the customer's stable IPv4 identity.

Lu's governance position is that legitimate operational delegation should be capable of being represented accurately without turning registry coordination into control of the customer's network.

For an overview of IPv4 leasing models, read IP Leasing: How IPv4 Leasing Works, Models, Costs & Benefits .

RPKI Is Important, but It Should Remain a Routing-Security Tool

RPKI is an important component of modern number-resource coordination.

A Route Origin Authorisation can identify which ASN is authorised to originate a particular prefix.

That can materially improve routing security.

But Lu's broader governance framework warns against treating security assertions as universal commercial or legal judgments.

RPKI should help networks verify intended route-origin relationships. It should not be transformed into a general-purpose mechanism for deciding unrelated commercial disputes.

Registry Coordination and Enforcement Should Remain Distinct

Registry systems need mechanisms to protect the integrity of their records, detect fraud and process legitimate administrative changes.

But broader enforcement powers can create additional governance questions, particularly when administrative action can affect running networks.

Lu Heng's framework therefore emphasises:

• clear authority;
• defined scope;
• transparent procedures;
• auditability;
• proportionality;
• appropriate due process; and
• attention to continuity consequences.

This is not an argument against enforcing valid rules.

It is an argument for matching enforcement authority to the function being protected.

Administrative Disputes and Running Networks

One of the clearest tests of registry governance occurs when an administrative dispute affects a resource already used in production.

A dispute may involve:

• contract interpretation;
• corporate authority;
• registration information;
• transfer eligibility;
• resource status;
• fraud allegations; or
• legal proceedings.

These issues may need formal resolution.

But the existence of a dispute does not make the operational consequences irrelevant.

Where appropriate, preserving a verified operational and administrative state while a dispute is properly resolved can reduce unnecessary disruption without deciding the final merits in advance.

For more detail, read What Happens When IPv4 Resources Are Recalled or Disputed? .

The AFRINIC Dispute and Lu Heng's Governance Thinking

Lu Heng's governance views have also been shaped by long-running disputes involving Cloud Innovation and AFRINIC.

These matters have involved multiple proceedings, contractual questions, registry administration, institutional governance and Internet number resources.

Because different proceedings have addressed different issues at different points in time, they should not be reduced to a simple statement that one party “won the AFRINIC case.”

Nor should individual court orders be treated as universal judicial approval of all IPv4 leasing arrangements or all positions advanced by either party.

The more useful governance lesson is that Internet infrastructure institutions remain subject to:

• their governing documents;
• applicable contracts;
• applicable law;
• procedural requirements;
• judicial oversight where relevant; and
• the operational consequences of their decisions.

From Lu Heng's perspective, the broader policy question is how critical Internet coordination can remain effective while authority, accountability and continuity stay appropriately balanced.

The Governance Lesson Is Larger Than One Legal Dispute

Internet governance should not depend on interpreting one litigation history as the answer to every institutional question.

Court proceedings can clarify specific legal rights, procedural obligations or institutional questions.

They do not replace the need for broader architectural thinking.

Questions that remain relevant include:

• What is the minimum registry function the Internet needs?
• How should critical registry data remain available during institutional disruption?
• How should disputes be handled without unnecessary customer outages?
• How should operational delegation be represented?
• How portable should Internet number resources be?
• How should authority and liability remain proportionate?
• How can operators reduce dependence on single institutional failure points?

The Registry Continuity Fallacy

Another important part of Lu Heng's framework is the distinction between preserving a registry institution and preserving registry functions.

Networks can depend on functions such as:

• resource registration;
• RDAP;
• RPKI;
• reverse DNS;
• transfer records;
• resource contacts; and
• other coordination data.

These functions need continuity.

But Lu argues that requiring continuity of the function does not necessarily mean requiring permanent dependence on one institutional implementation.

Protect the coordination function, not institutional permanence for its own sake.

This leads to questions about whether critical registry functions should be:

• auditable;
• exportable;
• recoverable;
• replicable where appropriate;
• portable; and
• capable of continuity through institutional disruption.

Registry-State Export and Institutional Resilience

Lu Heng has proposed registry-state export as one possible resilience mechanism.

The underlying idea is that a critical coordination system should not become impossible to reconstruct simply because one institution experiences operational, governance or legal failure.

A sufficiently complete export could preserve relevant state such as:

• resource records;
• organisation relationships;
• contacts;
• delegations;
• routing-security information;
• reverse-DNS relationships; and
• other data required to restore coordination functions.

This is a resilience proposal rather than a description of a universally implemented current RIR architecture.

Why Network Stability Is Different From Institutional Stability

Institutional stability can contribute to a stable Internet.

But the two concepts are not identical.

For a network operator, the ultimate operational questions are:

• Can the prefix still be routed?
• Can legitimate routing authorisation be maintained?
• Can registry information remain accurate?
• Can customers remain reachable?
• Can DNS and reverse DNS continue?
• Can administrative changes be made?
• Can the business keep operating?

Registry stability is valuable because networks depend on registry functions. The final objective is continuity of legitimate Internet operation.

Network Identity and Business Continuity

Lu Heng's governance work increasingly connects Internet policy with a practical enterprise issue: stable public network identity.

A public IP address may begin as an interchangeable technical resource.

Over time it may become embedded in:

• customer trust relationships;
• enterprise allowlists;
• financial systems;
• security policies;
• API integrations;
• partner infrastructure;
• VPN configurations; and
• compliance documentation.

When that occurs, renumbering can become a significant operational event.

For a deeper discussion, read Can Your Business Survive Losing Its IP Addresses? .

What Lu Heng's Governance Framework Does Not Claim

To understand the framework accurately, it is also useful to identify what it does not claim.

It does not claim that:

• Regional Internet Registries have no useful role;
• every registry policy is illegitimate;
• every BGP route should override registry information;
• fraud should be ignored;
• RPKI should be abandoned;
• Internet number resources require no coordination;
• commercial markets should operate without rules; or
• operators should be immune from applicable law.

The framework instead asks whether each authority is properly connected to the function it is intended to protect.

A Practical Governance Test

Lu Heng's ideas can be reduced to a practical set of questions.

How Lu Heng's Ideas Relate to LARUS

LARUS operates at the intersection of IPv4 services, routing support and Internet number-resource administration.

Lu Heng's governance perspective therefore influences how LARUS thinks about IPv4 continuity.

A useful separation is:

Customer

→ operates its network, applications, infrastructure and BGP policy

IPv4 service provider

→ carries defined commercial and registry-facing service responsibilities

Registry layer

→ provides relevant number-resource coordination functions

The objective is not to place every layer under LARUS control.

The objective is to make responsibility clear while preserving customer operational independence.

Clear accountability should support operator autonomy, not replace it.

Organisations where stable IPv4 identity matters can learn more about LARUS IPv4 Leasing Continuity Assurance .

Lu Heng's Internet Governance Principles

Across Lu Heng's recent governance writing, several recurring principles emerge.

1. Protect uniqueness. Internet number-resource coordination must continue preventing incompatible duplicate claims.
2. Keep registry records accurate. Coordination works best when records reflect relevant, legitimate operational reality.
3. Separate different forms of authority. Commercial rights, registry state, routing authorisation and operational use are connected but distinct.
4. Keep common rules minimal but effective. Common authority is strongest where interoperability genuinely requires it.
5. Preserve operator autonomy. Independent networks should continue making their own routing and infrastructure decisions where possible.
6. Support portability. Avoid unnecessary provider or institutional lock-in when continuity can be preserved safely.
7. Separate coordination from unnecessary enforcement. Administrative mechanisms should remain proportionate to their technical purpose.
8. Preserve running-network continuity. Administrative disputes should not unnecessarily become customer outages.
9. Make critical coordination functions resilient. Infrastructure should have auditability, recovery and replacement paths.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who is Lu Heng?

Lu Heng is the founder of LARUS and an Internet-infrastructure entrepreneur whose work includes IPv4 markets, network operations and Internet number-resource governance.

What is Lu Heng's view of Internet governance?

Lu argues that the Internet needs reliable common coordination while preserving meaningful independence for network operators. His work focuses particularly on number-resource uniqueness, accurate registry state, portability, routing security and continuity.

Does Lu Heng oppose Regional Internet Registries?

His governance framework does not argue that RIRs are unnecessary. RIRs perform important registration and coordination functions. His argument concerns the appropriate scope, accountability and resilience of registry authority.

What is Running-Code Primacy?

Running-Code Primacy is a governance framework proposed by Lu Heng. It asks whether compulsory common rules protect functions independently operated networks genuinely require for interoperability, security and continuity.

What does Lu Heng mean by thin coordination?

Thin coordination means keeping the common compulsory layer focused on necessary shared functions such as uniqueness, accurate registry state, security assertions, contactability and interoperability. It does not mean weak coordination.

Why does Lu Heng support IP address portability?

Stable public IP addresses can become embedded in customer allowlists, APIs, financial systems, security rules and other external systems. Portability can reduce unnecessary renumbering and provider lock-in when network infrastructure changes.

Does portability mean IPv4 addresses can move anywhere without rules?

No. Technical feasibility, contracts, security, registry accuracy and routing requirements still matter. The proposal is to reduce restrictions that are not necessary for those common coordination objectives.

Did Lu Heng win the AFRINIC case?

The Cloud Innovation–AFRINIC relationship has involved multiple legal proceedings and different court orders addressing different questions over several years. It is therefore more accurate to discuss individual decisions and issues than to describe the entire history as one case with one universal winner.

Did a court approve IPv4 leasing by Cloud Innovation or LARUS?

Court decisions should not be generalised beyond the specific issues and orders they address. Individual proceedings involving AFRINIC and Cloud Innovation should not be described as blanket judicial approval of IPv4 leasing arrangements generally.

What is registry-state export?

Registry-state export is a resilience proposal for preserving sufficient coordination data so that critical registry functions could be recovered or continued during serious institutional disruption. It is not a universally implemented feature of today's RIR system.

What does Internet governance mean for an enterprise?

For an enterprise, governance can become operational when it affects registry records, RPKI, routing, reverse DNS, resource mobility or the continued use of a public network identity.

Conclusion

Lu Heng's approach to Internet governance begins with a simple observation: the Internet is a network of independently operated networks.

Those networks cannot operate globally without common coordination.

IP addresses must remain unique. Registry information must remain sufficiently accurate. Security assertions need integrity. Networks need common technical standards.

But common coordination does not require every commercial, legal and operational decision to be made by the same institution.

A useful way to preserve that distinction is:

legal and commercial rights + registry state + routing authorisation + operational use

Each layer matters.

Each layer also has its own purpose.

Lu Heng's proposals around Running-Code Primacy, thin coordination, portability, registry resilience and network continuity attempt to answer one central question:

How can the Internet preserve the common coordination it genuinely needs without unnecessarily reducing the independence that made a global network of networks possible?

These proposals are contributions to an ongoing Internet-governance debate, rather than descriptions of universal current policy.

For Lu Heng's original governance writing, visit Heng.lu .

For a neutral overview of Internet governance and the institutions involved, read Internet Governance: What It Is, How It Works and Who Shapes the Internet .

For more on ownership, registry state and network control, read Who Owns IP Addresses? .

For a practical discussion of IPv4 network identity and continuity, read Can Your Business Survive Losing Its IP Addresses? .

For organisations where stable public IPv4 identity matters, explore LARUS IPv4 Leasing Continuity Assurance .