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

[Owen DeLong]

On Sep 13, 2013, at 8:53 AM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> Majority is certainly more problematic than plurality. Plurality might not be
>> the best possible choice, either, but nobody, including myself, has yet proposed
>> a better alternative. The AC would certainly welcome any improved language
>> from the community if anyone has a better idea.
> 
> Hi Owen,
> 
> The intent of the policy proposal is to keep the use of ARIN addresses
> in-region. I say this with the utmost respect: A 20% rule doesn't do
> that. It does, however, create a new and potentially onerous
> documentary burden on every registrant requesting addresses.

With all due respect, if that's the intent, then I oppose the policy.

I do support an intent to reasonably accommodate address allocations
to entities using the addresses in-region and/or to entities that are
in-region that want to simplify their international operations by not
having to deal with every RIR where they happen to have an office.

> More, "plurality" makes the 20% rule needlessly complicated. I have to
> keep 20% in the ARIN region... unless I have 23% in the RIPE region
> and then I need to keep 24% in the ARIN region unless I have 30% in
> the APNIC region in which case I need 31% in the ARIN region, but if
> that drops the RIPE region down to 27% I can reduce the ARIN region
> holdings to 28%.

I suppose you can make it sound complex like that, but, in reality, it's
much simpler… You need to make sure that more of your operations
using ARIN space are in the ARIN region than anywhere else.

If you don't like that, you are, of course free with or without this policy
to get your space for your operations in each region from that region.

> I'm for keeping ARIN addresses in region. I'm against creating new and
> potentially onerous documentary burdens. I'm doubly against creating
> new and potentially onerous documentary burdens which fail to
> plausibly achieve their defined goal.

And I'm against making it harder for in-region users with out-of-region
operations to use ARIN space globally when that makes good operational
sense.

Owen