[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-155 IPv4 Number Resources for Use Within Region
farmer at umn.edu
Thu Jul 7 16:15:21 EDT 2011
On 7/7/11 10:50 CDT, William Herrin wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Tony Hain<alh-ietf at tndh.net> wrote:
>>>>> Each RIR is a facilitator in distributing IP addresses
>>>>> to networks and registries WITHIN that RIR's region.
>> 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.
> A decade and a half ago, the principals behind APNIC made the case
> that the global address registry (then the InterNIC) should be
> replaced with a resource management model which follows geographic
> borders. We're operating on their plan. If there is a GLOBAL desire to
> return to a global registry model for any of our number resources,
> that proposal should come in the front door, not the back.
But, I think Tony makes a good argument, there was more of a
facilitatory intent involved than exclusionary intent in the creation of
the RIR system. Things like; service desks in time zones close by,
speaking languages used in the region, cultural understanding of the
region, organizational governance from within the region, with meetings
and other events in the region. I believe these issues were far more
important than drawing lines on a map. It was about making things
better, not about creating territorial monopolies.
> ARIN should not permit itself to become a defacto global registry
> through the expedient of turning a blind eye to outregion use of ARIN
> region addresses. As well invite the ITU in and join a competitive
> registry race to the bottom.
> I don't like Robert's specific proposal, but I completely agree with
> the concept. If we're going to remain regional in a world where IP
> addresses now have a significant dollar value, lets make sure we're
> actually being regional.
However, while the intent may have been facilitatory, we did draw lines
on the map too. We didn't necessarily have to, but we did. However,
in ICP-2 there is a clear intent that these lines should be at "large
geographical region of approximately continental size"
Tony, is right that ICP-2 is an after-the-fact document, but this seems
consistent with the vision of RFC1174;
At a later step, we anticipate that it will be desirable to
distribute the IR function among multiple centers, e.g., with centers
on different continents. This should be straight-forward once the IR
function is divorced from policy enforcement.
And with the implementation plan in RFC 1366 and RFC 1466;
2.0 Qualifications for Distributed Regional Registries
The distributed regional registry is empowered by the IANA and the IR
to provide the network number registration function to a geographic
area. It is possible for network subscribers to contact the IR
directly. Depending on the circumstances the network subscriber may
be referred to the regional registry, but the IR will be prepared to
service any network subscriber if necessary.
And with RFC 2050;
Regional IRs operate in large geopolitical regions such as
continents. Currently there are three regional IRs established;
InterNIC serving North America, RIPE NCC serving Europe, and AP-
NIC serving the Asian Pacific region. Since this does not cover
all areas, regional IRs also serve areas around its core service
areas. It is expected that the number of regional IRs will remain
relatively small. Service areas will be of continental
In reading through all of this, the lines seem more fuzzy or fungible to
me, more a matter of what is convenient than an immutable boundary. So
I tend to want to go with Tony's interpretation of these line as being
of facilitatory in nature, rather than exclusionary in nature. Or, put
another way, the creation of the RIR system was about creating choices
and option, not about limiting them.
So, this boils down to a simple question; What is the meaning of those
line on the map? However, I believe that simple question has to be
answered by global consensus, not by regional mandate.
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