[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-6: Allocation of IPv4 and IPv6 Address Space to Out-of-region Requestors - Revised

[Matthew Kaufman]

John, a few clarifying scenarios below, if you would be so kind as to 
apply your interpretation both pre- and post-policy to these as well:

On 10/8/2013 6:15 PM, John Curran wrote:
> On Oct 8, 2013, at 9:26 AM, Frank Bulk <frnkblk at iname.com>
> wrote:
>
>> John,
>>
>> What if Acme Hosting, Inc., located in the Silicon Valley, found a niche
>> offering virtualized servers for Asian customers who want to have their
>> Internet-based services hosted more closely to the North American market.
>>
>> Acme Hosting and their infrastructure are clearly in the U.S., but their
>> customers are not in the ARIN region.
> Their physical infrastructure would only qualify for modest address space
> in accordance with policy, and this would not change with the addition of
> virtualized servers on existing equipment.
>
>> Does the policy, as currently written, preclude Acme Hosting from requesting
>> more address space as their Asian customer base grows?
> Under current policy, they may request additional addresses as their customers
> grow.  Under the current revised policy text, we would not consider their
> customers who are not in region.  This side effect (hosting companies not being
> able to consider customers who are out of region) may or may not be desirable,
> but is understandable given the additional of customer region as criteria.


So if I understand the above response, when Acme Hosting comes and 
requests more addresses for the VMs because they have a bunch more Asian 
customers who want a local server presence, you would approve now but 
deny with the new policy. Correct?

And when Acme Hosting, who was doing a brisk business selling VMs to 
Asian customers, and now has 55% Asian customers in total comes to you 
to request a  bunch of IP addresses for VMs that they are selling to a 
new set of *US based* customers, you would still approve now but deny 
(because of the plurality of existing usage) under the new policy?

Does the same apply for Acme Websites, who was doing a similarly brisk 
business with the Asian market, but not for VMs but instead additional 
IP addresses on physical hosts used for non-SNI SSL hosting? Or are 
their additional IP addresses that they're assigning to physical 
hardware interfaces considered by ARIN to be "infrastructure" owned and 
operated by Acme Websites? (They do respond to ARP requests on the 
physical Ethernet segment, so it sure feels like they're "really there")

How about for Acme Physical Servers, who was also doing a similarly 
brisk business with the Asian market, but instead of VMs, was out 
provisioning actual physical hardware for these customers? Are those 
physical servers which are in use by the Asian customers considered to 
be customer equipment owned and operated by Asian customers, or 
infrastructure equipment owned by Acme Physical Servers (who not only 
has physical possession of the servers, but also the root password and 
only lets the customers upload website data)?

And what do you do when the above Acme Physical Servers gets approved 
for the space, but realizes they can save a bunch of money selling all 
their cloud servers on eBay and moving everyone to 1/10th of the 
remaining machines as VMs?

I'm sure I'll have a small number of additional questions after learning 
the response for each of these, but this should give us enough to think 
about.

Matthew Kaufman