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

[Matthew Kaufman]

On 10/9/2013 3:30 PM, John Curran wrote:
> On Oct 9, 2013, at 2:03 AM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew at matthew.at> wrote:
>> On Oct 9, 2013, at 12:33 AM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew at matthew.at> wrote:
>>> 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.
>> ...
>> And under the proposed policy your usage verification would require "a plurality of new resources requested from ARIN must be justified by technical infrastructure or customers located within the ARIN service region"... and so if you don't count my virtual servers as "technical infrastructure" (see your previous reply: "We don't consider virtual 'technical infrastructure' for assessing the need for addresses") and the "customers" of my cloud service happen to be mostly outside of the ARIN service region, what then?
> Under the present policy, your _end-user_ request would be approved if you could
> credibly shown that you have used 80% of all previously assigned address blocks.
> We have no need to consider the regional nature of the customer or equipments
> usage that led to this, but do need credible evidence of the utilization.
>
> Under the proposed policy, your _end-user_ request would be still approved if you
> could credibly shown that you have used 80% of all previously assigned address
> blocks (this does not change.)  Note that we now need to credibly determine the
> regional nature of the customer or equipment growth behind that utilization.

Interesting. I do wonder if that is what the original authors of the 
policy intended, because this seems to be the opposite of what they 
would want to happen in such a case... end-user assignment or not, the 
"users" they want to have authority over would be out-of-region. (And 
sure, they could come to the hosting company and tell it to shut a 
service down, but that's true when an ISP routes packets to a customer 
as well, and so why are they asking for what they're asking for?)

Matthew Kaufman