[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-155 IPv4 Number Resources for Use Within Region

[David Farmer]

On 7/21/11 16:00 CDT, Scott Leibrand wrote:
> For many of the reasons others have expressed already, I oppose this
> proposal text.  However, I do believe it is important to discuss this
> issue before it is overtaken by events, so that ARIN knows what the
> community feels is the right thing to do.

I too cannot support this policy as written, but also believe it is 
necessary for us to discuss this issue in Philly.

> Instead of the blanket prohibition against out-of-region use proposed
> in this text, I would prefer we modify it to a threshold more like
> 50%, which would read something like this:

I would characterize the policy intent I would want to see as "new 
resources allocated from ARIN should be mostly used within the ARIN 
region", but I don't interpret that as meaning that 50% should be used 
within the ARIN region.  I think that means the usage within the ARIN 
region should be larger than any other individual region.

Today with globalization, I could see a someone claiming ARIN as their 
home region and still have more total resources in use outside the 
region.  But for ARIN to be their home region then the ARIN region 
should be the largest single region where their resources are used.  I 
think this would be especially relevant for multinational corporations 
getting direct assignments from ARIN, but probably ISP too.

So I would suggest wording something like; "IPv4 addresses obtained from 
ARIN may be used within another RIR's region.  However, use within any 
other individual RIR's region must not exceed the use within the ARIN 
region."

So as an example, I could see a multinational company based in the US or 
Canada having resources from ARIN and use its resources among the 
regions as follows; 30% ARIN, 30% APNIC, 25% RIPE, 10% LACNIC, 5% 
AfriNIC  Most of the resources are not used within the ARIN region, but 
none of the use in the other regions exceeds the use in the ARIN region.

To me this seems like a reasonable requirement for use of resources from 
the ARIN region, without being overly restrictive, this could possibly 
even work for IPv6 addresses too.  Furthermore, it maintains a logical 
reason to have regions in the first place.  Finally, I don't think this 
should create a problem for any organization that really thinks of 
itself as primarily an organization from the ARIN region.

If that seems to wishy-washy, then I could also go with something like 
"use must be no less than X% in the ARIN region, and use within any 
other individual RIR's region must not exceed the use within the ARIN 
region."  Where X equals something like 25, 30, or 35%. But, requiring 
50% usage within the ARIN region doesn't seem to take into account the 
realities of globalization today.

> These IPv4 addresses are issued primarily for use in networks within
> the ARIN region. Organizations requesting IPv4 addresses from ARIN
> must provide documentation to demonstrate that the majority of
> addresses received will be used to number customers/devices within the
> ARIN region and must agree to use the addresses accordingly. This
> requirement shall be binding only on number resources requested after
> its ratification by the ARIN Board of Trustees.
>
> -Scott
>

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota	
2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================