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

[Matthew Kaufman]

On 10/7/2013 4:37 PM, John Curran wrote:
> We don't consider virtual "technical infrastructure" for assessing the 
> need for addresses, even though service providers may use such when 
> adding customers. The additional customers driving such virtual growth 
> are readily verifiable. The alternative would be to consider virtual 
> equipment (e.g. VM's) as actual technical infrastructure and that 
> would effectively open the justification of unlimited resources by any 
> party without any actual equipment or customer growth.

I'm pretty sure that we must "consider virtual equipment (e.g. VM's) as 
actual technical infrastructure". The actual businesses that are being 
built on the Internet appear to have outpaced policy here.

If I host a large computing cloud or storage cloud, I really need to be 
able to get additional address space as that cloud grows. There may be 
no addresses that are "assigned to a specific customer" or even a "pool 
of addresses that are used by specific customers" in the traditional ISP 
sense. In fact, I might consider myself an end-user of IP space, not an 
ISP, and be attempting to get address space as an end-user. And the 
growth of the exposed IP surface of that cloud may or may not be a 
linear function of the physical resources I throw at it. In fact, as the 
physical resources get more powerful, I would expect not.

When Google comes back for more address space under the proposed policy, 
will they be denied because this week more Google searches are being 
initiated (by what Google considers their "customers") from outside of 
the ARIN region?

Matthew Kaufman