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

[John Santos]

On Wed, 25 Sep 2013, Owen DeLong wrote:

> 
> On Sep 25, 2013, at 3:27 PM, John Santos <JOHN at egh.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 25 Sep 2013, William Herrin wrote:
> > 
> >> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:59 AM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:
> > [...]

[...]
> 
> > network with 30% ARIN, 70% RIPE should be getting its resources from RIPE,
> 
> Which would fail the plurality test.
> 
> > but (2) one with 29% ARIN, 28% RIPE, 25% APNIC, and the other 17% spread
> > across Africa and Latin America should get their resources from ARIN,
> 
> Which would pass the plurality test.
> 

Yes, I don't have a problem with the word "plurality", Bill apparently 
does...

> > despite having a smaller footprint than the 1st organization.  And what of
> > (3), which has 28.99% ARIN, 29.01% RIPE right now, but it could change in
> > the next 15 minutes?  Maybe "within 5% of a plurality in the ARIN region"
> > would be a better metric. 
> 
> In reality, I think that particular boundary condition is an unlikely corner case.
> Where is the other 42% of that network, by the way?
> 

As per my example (2), with no more than 25% in any other region.


> As I said above, the numbers do not tend to move as quickly as you claim.
> Names tend to be quite dynamic. Numbers tend to be fairly stable. If they
> were not, BGP would have a much higher (and unsustainable) level of churn.
> 

Most of my addresses (in my tiny little Class C) have moved less than 20
feet in the last 20 years, all are still in the same building :-)  This
is mostly of academic interest to me as I try to envision the future of
the Internet.  But also my company is trying to get its foot in the door
in IP-based telephony, so Internet addressing and routing policies are of
enormous interest to my customers (big telcos), and I need to understand
their issues.

Is the general consensus that a mobile device would more likely re-number
itself as it moves around, rather than transporting its address with it?
Even in the glorious (mythical?) future of identity/location separation?

If so, then address location (or subnet location, since that is probably
what would really be measured) would be much less dynamic and so less
problematic than I envisioned. 

> > I think right now, an organization can basically deal with the registry it
> > finds most convenient, whether for geography, language, culture or
> > whatever. The proposal doesn't seem to be about registry shopping (my
> 
> No, actually, most of the other RIRs are much stricter about out-of-region
> use of address space than ARIN.

Okay, didn't know this.

[...]

> 
> Owen
> 
> 
> 

-- 
John Santos
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539