[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-178 Regional Use of Resources

[Tony Hain]

Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Jul 14, 2012, at 10:07 AM, Tony Hain wrote:
> 
> > Owen DeLong wrote:
> >> ...
> >>
> >> Do you think that an ISP from out of region should be allowed to set
> >> up a small shell company in the US and then obtain unlimited
> >> resources from
> > ARIN
> >> to use in their operations elsewhere in the world?
> >>> ...
> >
> > Just a reminder that the address space is a global resource. ARIN is a
> > regional administrator to - facilitate - distribution, just like the
> > other 4. It was not set up to act as a body that hoards everything it
> > can get its hands on.
> >
> > Rewind the clock to ~'96 when IANA handled all distribution, and there
> > was no 'this is mine' mentality. Seriously, 2 year olds in the sandbox
> > do a better job of resource sharing than what we are seeing in the
> > wind-down of the IPv4 pool.
> >
> > I still believe that the best course of action would be for the RIR
> > holding the largest pool to take on the role of IANA and do a
> > monthly/quarterly distribution through any RIR without the resources
> > to meet its customer's needs. This avoids the problem of shell
> > companies in all regions, and the associated short-term bubble
> > staffing demands to review requests; as well as depleting the
> > remaining free pool in an expeditious manner, which avoids absurd
> distortions in whatever market emerges.
> >
> > IPv4 is a historical artifact, get over it and move on. Arguing over
> > policies intended to hoard the last remaining scraps on the bone is
> > more the domain of the Condor or Jackal than civilized facilitators.
> >
> > Tony
> >
> 
> 
> 
> Tony,
> 
> Neither David nor I support hoarding. I absolutely support returning
portions
> of the ARIN free pool to IANA for redistribution to other RIRs.
> 
> However, what we want to avoid primarily with this policy is RIR policy
> shopping and/or efforts by members of the other RIRs to essentially
> circumvent their policies by effectively transferring space into those
regions
> outside of the control of those RIRs.

RIR shopping A) is not a real problem because the result is not as
disastrous as people speculate;  B) is not going to be stopped by
unenforceable policies;  C) is an absurd necessity because the RIR
memberships have forgotten that they are tasked as 'local facilitators' to
-- distribute the resources --  on behalf of IANA.  The RIRs are not
resource tsar's, they are stewards. The entire concept of 'outside the
control' has no place in this conversation.

The only thing the RIRs need to be watching for is duplicate requests to
fulfill the same deployment. If someone is a member of all 5 RIRs, does not
acquire excess resource by using the same need in more than one request, and
conforms to the policy where the request is made, it is not anyone's
business how that gets deployed.

> 
> This proposal applies to ASNs and IPv6 resources as well as IPv4.

As it should, but there is still no justification for language that attempts
to restrict where a resource is used. It is the height of hypocrisy to tell
ARIN members that they cannot claim property rights over the assigned
resources, yet ARIN has the ability to assert property rights by restricting
where an asset gets used. The steward role requires ARIN to watch for
duplicate requests to other RIRs for the same need, but the facilitator role
requires them to -- actually distribute -- the resources. When the only
intent of proposed language is to prevent distribution of resource because
someone outside the ARIN region might benefit, it has to be called out and
removed as counter to ARINs role as facilitator on behalf of IANA for the
global resource. 

As long as a member makes a justified request, and is not duplicating that
to get more from other RIRs, where that resource gets deployed is their
issue alone. Besides, no matter what policy is put in place it is
unenforceable because any resource that gets allocated can be moved later
with a 'change of business requirements', and what justifies attempting
reclamation? Unless you plan to make every operating network renumber all AS
& address resources to be compliant with a regional restriction, there is no
'need' to do so for new deployments; meaning any such policy would not
withstand a challenge. The only plausible justification for attempting a
protectionist region restriction is hoarding to retain what little pool is
left, in a hypocritical contortion of property rights. 

RIPE will exhaust their remaining IPv4 pool in a couple of  months, so the
pressure to do something will increase. Unfortunately people will more often
do the irrational thing under pressure, and this protectionist language is
already starting down that road. Raising the threat of 'shell companies
subverting RIR control' only furthers the irrational behavior. 

Tony

> 
> Owen