[arin-ppml] support for 2014-1 (out of region use)

[Matthew Kaufman]

On 2/9/14, 8:37 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 11:04 PM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew at matthew.at> wrote:
>> On 2/8/2014 6:19 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>>> If we want to manage addresses this way, we should first endeavor to pass
>>> a globally coordinated policy to the effect that multiregional organizations
>>> should solicit the registry in their headquarters' region for all
>>> registry-direct number resources rather than soliciting the registry that
>>> serves the region where the resources are employed.
>>
>> I have a better idea:
>>
>> For IPv4, realize that really really soon, this isn't going to matter.
> Howdy,
>
> Windows had primacy for more than a decade before folks stopped using
> DOS programs. Do you not recall all the workarounds getting DOS games
> to work in Windows 98 and later windows XP? IPv6 doesn't even have
> primacy yet. Reports of IPv4's death are premature.

I'm not talking about when IPv4 isn't used any more. I'm talking about 
when ARIN stops handing out IPv4 addresses to people who ask nicely for 
them. That's going to happen in a year or so, best case. Maybe sooner.

Or are you supposing that we're somehow going to constrain the IPv4 
transfer market to keep addresses from "leaving the region" as well?

>
>
>> For IPv6, realize that it almost never matters.
> The intersection between registry allocation policy and ISP filtering
> policy is still working itself out. Moreover, unlike IPv4, changes in
> the layer 4 protocols could yet yield major shifts in how addresses
> are managed. Don't be so quick to declare what does or does not
> matter.
>
>
>> I have no problem with someone getting a nice big IPv6 block from one
>> convenient local RIR, and then splitting it up across their multinational
>> organization however they see fit. If they plan well, they *never* come back
>> to *any* RIR for address space.
> I predict that last sentence turns out to be a pipe dream. If I'm
> wrong, look me up in 10 years and I'll buy you lunch.
>
> As for the rest, I would support a global policy to the effect that
> organizations should deal exclusively with their home (headquarters)
> registries for IPv6 allocations. I DO NOT want to see ARIN going it
> alone here, and I DO NOT want to see registry shopping.
>
> Allowing multinationals to registry-shop is a form of cross-subsidy.
> As you know, cross-subsidy is one of the foundations of monopoly. If
> the multinational can acquire addresses from the most convenient
> registry, he gains an anticompetitive advantage over his smaller,
> local competitor who may only deal with the registry in his region.

For IPv6, how will this matter? Do you really think that some region 
will have wildly more permissive policies that some multinational can 
take advantage of in a way that a local competitor can not? I see the 
point with IPv4, what with some RIRs not able to assign addresses at 
all, but that's not what we're talking about here.

> What makes this truly evil is that the regulatory regime from the RIRs
> is not money-driven. The registry's rules may prevent the competitor
> from matching the multinational's address offerings at any price.
>
> So, I am totally against any policy regime which makes it practical
> for a multinational organization to registry-shop for his addresses.
> Either everybody should be able to get addresses from any registry,
> regardless of geography and nationality, or only one registry should
> be a legitimate source for a give use of addresses.

Well, it sure seemed like a good idea when it was set up this way. If 
only someone could have predicted that we would run out in different 
places at different times, this could have been avoided (for the IPv4 case)

Matthew Kaufman