[arin-ppml] support for 2014-1 (out of region use)

[William Herrin]

On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 11:04 PM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew at matthew.at> wrote:
> On 2/8/2014 6:19 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>> If we want to manage addresses this way, we should first endeavor to pass
>> a globally coordinated policy to the effect that multiregional organizations
>> should solicit the registry in their headquarters' region for all
>> registry-direct number resources rather than soliciting the registry that
>> serves the region where the resources are employed.
>
>
> I have a better idea:
>
> For IPv4, realize that really really soon, this isn't going to matter.

Howdy,

Windows had primacy for more than a decade before folks stopped using
DOS programs. Do you not recall all the workarounds getting DOS games
to work in Windows 98 and later windows XP? IPv6 doesn't even have
primacy yet. Reports of IPv4's death are premature.


> For IPv6, realize that it almost never matters.

The intersection between registry allocation policy and ISP filtering
policy is still working itself out. Moreover, unlike IPv4, changes in
the layer 4 protocols could yet yield major shifts in how addresses
are managed. Don't be so quick to declare what does or does not
matter.


> I have no problem with someone getting a nice big IPv6 block from one
> convenient local RIR, and then splitting it up across their multinational
> organization however they see fit. If they plan well, they *never* come back
> to *any* RIR for address space.

I predict that last sentence turns out to be a pipe dream. If I'm
wrong, look me up in 10 years and I'll buy you lunch.

As for the rest, I would support a global policy to the effect that
organizations should deal exclusively with their home (headquarters)
registries for IPv6 allocations. I DO NOT want to see ARIN going it
alone here, and I DO NOT want to see registry shopping.

Allowing multinationals to registry-shop is a form of cross-subsidy.
As you know, cross-subsidy is one of the foundations of monopoly. If
the multinational can acquire addresses from the most convenient
registry, he gains an anticompetitive advantage over his smaller,
local competitor who may only deal with the registry in his region.
What makes this truly evil is that the regulatory regime from the RIRs
is not money-driven. The registry's rules may prevent the competitor
from matching the multinational's address offerings at any price.

So, I am totally against any policy regime which makes it practical
for a multinational organization to registry-shop for his addresses.
Either everybody should be able to get addresses from any registry,
regardless of geography and nationality, or only one registry should
be a legitimate source for a give use of addresses.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004