[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

David Farmer farmer at umn.edu
Thu Sep 12 22:21:43 EDT 2013

On 9/12/13 13:35 , William Herrin wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 5:25 PM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:
>> X. Resource Justification within ARIN Region
>> Organizations requesting Internet number resources from ARIN must
>> provide proof that they (1) are an active business entity legally
>> operating within the ARIN service region, and (2) are operating a
>> network located within the ARIN service region. In addition to meeting
>> all other applicable policy requirements, a plurality of resources
>> requested from ARIN must be justified by technical infrastructure and
>> customers located within the ARIN service region, and any located
>> outside the region must be interconnected to the ARIN service region.
>> The same technical infrastructure or customers cannot be used to justify
>> resources in more than one RIR.
> More broadly, I would suggest that further revision of this draft drop
> all concern for the legal status of the registrant. I think that
> better addressed as an ARIN business matter. Instead, focus on the
> degree to which the equipment on which the ARIN number resources are
> employed is physically present within the ARIN region.

The details are definitely an ARIN business matter, but ARIN frequently 
get's asked "where does the policy require that?" And below you ask 
about "what the author was trying to achieve(?)", Legal Presence within 
the region was one of the key issues for the authors.

> Plurality seems like an odd choice of word above. The implication is
> that if 21% of the equipment for which I use ARIN addresses is in
> North America, and as long as my use in each of the other four regions
> is 20% or less, I'm good to go.

Well more precisely the lowest possible use within the ARIN region is 
some fraction greater than 20%, with less than or equal to 20% in the 
other four regions.  While possible in reality, this is much more of a 
contrived example that something you would expect to see regularly in 
the real world.  However, if you were only operating within the ARIN 
region and one other region you would need greater than 50% in the ARIN 
region and less that 50% in the other region, a simple majority.

> That doesn't seem to be what the author was trying to achieve, does it?

I'd agree it wasn't what the authors were originally thinking, but if 
you review the earlier comments there were several people that objected 
to a 50% majority, and plurality was suggested as an alternative, as 
discussed in the Advisory Council Comments sections.

In discussions with the authors their primary intent was that there be 
significant use in region.  Plurality, is by no means perfect, for many 
it is way too much of a restriction and for other not enough, but it 
seems like a reasonable compromise.  While the authors would prefer a 
50% majority, they seemed to feel it was a reasonable compromise.

David Farmer               Email: farmer at umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE     Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list