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

John Santos JOHN at egh.com
Wed Sep 25 20:12:21 EDT 2013

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 

> > 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

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list