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

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Tue Jul 5 14:50:00 EDT 2011

On Jul 2, 2011, at 6:28 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:

> On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> I'm not 100% sure that many existing and perfectly legitimate providers would
>> actually meet that test. There are 5 regions. Not wanting to deal with more than
>> one of them could lead to a provider having approximately 20% in each region
>> without "region shopping".
> Perhaps then, the requirement could be that "20% or more of each
> allocation or transfer
> requested must be for assignment within the ARIN region.    And an
> additional special utilization
> criterion must be met, considering only hosts in the ARIN region and
> resources allocated
> for use in the ARIN region,   in addition to the global utilization criterion."

I'd be OK with the 20% rule.

What special criterion?

> It is not as if the new allocation will be contiguous with a previous one.
> Unless the new allocation request is split across regions, there is not
> a technical network-related reason to meet that request using the same
> RIR that allocated other networks.

While there isn't a technical network-related reason, there are MANY business
reasons... It complicates the accounting, increases the costs, and is otherwise
burdensome from a business perspective to suddenly force organizations that
have been dealing with one RIR under existing rules to suddenly change that
for a few future IPv4 allocations. I see no real benefit compared to the costs of
such a change.

> ARIN should not necessarily support global organizations' desire to
> deal with only one RIR
> in every circumstance, just because they might consider it more expedient.

They have done so for many years and I think changing that for IPv4 only now
would be burdensome, arbitrary, and capricious.

> If an org needs a new /16,  and  every single host in that allocation
> is going to be in
> Europe,  then they should be compelled to obtain the allocation from RIPE,
> the proper relevant region for that network.
> Regardless of whether they have other networks in a different region (or not)

Why? If an organization is headquartered in the Canada and needs a /16 today
for use in Europe and Latin America, they can obtain it from ARIN under current policy and
that has been supported and in some cases even encouraged for years. Why
should they be forced to add an entire new set of fees, contracts, and additional
overhead for this small additional allocation to their existing /12 worth of space
in those regions? Why should their staff be suddenly and temporarily forced to
learn policies and procedures for two additional RIRs that they never had to
deal with before?


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list