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

[John Curran]

On Oct 8, 2013, at 11:23 AM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew at matthew.at> wrote:

> 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:
> ...
> 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?

Matthew - 

  We verify technical infrastructure and customers - this verifying _existing_ 
  assignments already made.  Based on that rate of utilization, the requester 
  will qualify for certain amount of space.   Under the new policy, we would
  only issuance space such that a plurality of new resources were justified 
  by the utilization rate of in-region customers extended forward.

> 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?

  Correct, the "intent" of the request for additional IP addresses for new 
  in-region customers doesn't matter; we'd still look at the existing usage
  assigned to customers.

> 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")

  We would consider the past utilization of IP addresses assigned to the 
  equipment in region to determine utilization rate going forward.

> 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)?

  We would consider the past utilization of IP addresses assigned to the 
  equipment in region to determine utilization rate going forward.

> 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?

  We generally know how to work with customers who go through equipment 
  changes, including equipment with higher densities of IP address usage.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN