[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-178 Regional Use of Resources
alh-ietf at tndh.net
Tue Jul 17 12:15:21 EDT 2012
Owen DeLong wrote:
> Sent from my iPad
> On Jul 16, 2012, at 11:59 AM, "Tony Hain" <alh-ietf at tndh.net> wrote:
> > Owen DeLong wrote:
> >> On Jul 15, 2012, at 1:22 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> >>> On 7/15/12, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
> >>>> creates an unacceptable danger that people may implement IPv6 using
> >>>> separate unaggregatable prefixes from multiple RIRs. When they may
> >>>> be
> >>> Prefixes from other RIRs are aggregable along the Geographical
> >>> address assignment hierarchy lines.
> >>> Aggregation of all prefixes to outside RIR region X to one route
> >>> for external Region X.
> >>> "One global prefix" is in conflict with better efficiency achieved
> >>> through that method.
> >>> --
> >>> -JH
> >> That's not universally true. If you operate a highly efficient
> >> backbone network, you actually get greatest efficiency from accepting
> >> your traffic
> > on a
> >> hot potato basis and controlling it across your own network as soon
> >> as possible. Advertising a single global prefix facilitates that quite
> > This highlights why it is insane to restrict a resource to 'only for
> > use within the allocating region'.
> Which the proposed policy does not do.
Running a global transit network as a single prefix is not 'incidental use'.
> >> The backbone operator should have the choice and this proposal
> >> accomplishes exactly that... Either number your global network out of
> >> a single RIR (mostly) or number your network out of each region
> >> (mostly)
> > with
> >> room for some flexibility to accommodate the differences between
> >> theoretical optimizations and real world deployments.
> > And the 'flexibility' creates ambiguity, which in turn leads to
> > conflict, which in turn makes the proposed language unenforceable.
> > Simplify and make the requirement 'must justify existing global
> > resource use against policy of the RIR being asked'.
> I think it is time to agree to disagree on this point.
Possibly, but consider the ambiguity of this case:
A corporate entity has its headquarters in the ARIN region. It therefore
qualifies under the proposal X2 for using ARIN resources on a global basis.
BUT --- that entity is actually a subsidiary of a multi-national
conglomerate with headquarters elsewhere. It is still a legally recognized
entity with a separate name, headquartered in the ARIN region, so you can't
argue that it doesn't qualify under X2 just because its parent happens to be
So exactly what problem does the proposed policy exactly solve? Your comment
on 7/13 implies that you expect this proposal to prevent a shell company
from moving resources outside the region, but there is no legal mechanism
for ARIN to enforce that. You either have to force all resources for
everyone to be regionally constrained, or there is no enforceable
> > Tony
> >> Owen
More information about the ARIN-PPML