[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-155 IPv4 Number Resources for Use Within Region
alh-ietf at tndh.net
Thu Jul 7 10:11:00 EDT 2011
David Farmer wrote:
> On 7/6/11 21:36 CDT, Tony Hain wrote:
> > Jimmy Hess wrote:
> >> Each RIR is a facilitator in distributing IP addresses
> >> to networks and registries WITHIN that RIR's region.
> >> A RIR is not designed to be a facilitator in distributing IP
> >> or setting addressing policy for networks in other regions.
> > Attempting to rewrite history by asserting an exclusionary mantra
> does not
> > make it so. Organizations have always been free to join any RIR and
> > whatever that RIRs policy allows with any space allocated or
> assigned. The
> > BS exclusionary mindset is a direct product of regional hoarding at
> the end
> > of the free pool.
> > This is an exceptionally bad approach to policy, and completely
> > with the notion that industry self-regulation is appropriate for
> > the valuable global resources of network addressing. If we really are
> > looking out for the good-of-the-whole, exclusionary tactics are out
> > scope. If we really believe exclusionary tactics are appropriate,
> bend over
> > and get ready for the regulatory oversight that WILL arrive shortly
> > Tony
> More or less, I want to agree with you. But, how do you justify this
> with ICP-2 and the concept of separate service regions.
I don't see anything in there that says 'exclusion', and the most
restrictive language is simply a SHOULD.
> Also, this come from a Policy Experience Report Question from San Juan;
> Slides 7 and 8;
> This also plays into the questions of returning of space to IANA,
> Inter-RIR transfers, needs based transfers in ARIN and non-needs based
> transfers in APNIC, etc...
The market will ignore arbitrary attempts of oversight and meddling. An
assertion that your needs are greater than mine when I am the one putting
money on the table will simply drive all transfers underground. ARIN has to
remove itself from fantasy land and recognize that in this case stewardship
means documenting what is going on, not attempting to drive the resources to
those who continue to insist on the past free access to resources.
> In some ways if ARIN could service anyone globally using its policies,
> that might be a good way to deal with a bunch of sticky issues, but at
> least on the surface that conflicts with ICP-2. On the other hand, if
> you allow that, you can raises a bunch of sticky issues too. Can
> someone move all or some of their registrations to another region?
What in practice stops this today? Once I have the resources there is
nothing that prevents moving them around. Getting more might be an issue,
but likely not. The only practical thing that currently is precluded is
changing which RIR you pay membership to while attempting to retain a
> I don't want to be exclusionary. But then isn't the whole concept of
> regional service areas suppose to be at least somewhat exclusionary?
> Otherwise what is the meaning of regional service areas in ICP-2?
That was a half-baked attempt at routing table constraint, but nobody does
aggregation based on RIR. If you want a real geo proxy aggregation model you
need something like:
Even so, ICP-2 is revisionist since the big 3 predated it, and their
original mission was faciliatory, not exclusionary. The regional
protectionism language that is in ICP-2 is more about avoiding the dns
registrar fiasco than about precluding an organization from acquiring space
from another existing RIR. If operational practice was to aggregate by RIR,
and ICP-2 said MUST, I could see it being an impediment. As it is, it is
nothing more than a speed bump (and a low one at that).
> When there was an IANA free pool, we could wave our hands mumble
> something that sounded good, go to the bar and keep getting rounds of
> drinks until no one could remember what the question was. But
> tells me that trick won't work no more.:)
I agree, events have overtaken us. The open question is how we break the
tendency to hoard in the face of famine. If we don't, the short term gain
will result in a long term loss of the self-regulatory model.
> 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
More information about the ARIN-PPML