[arin-ppml] Support for 2015-5 (Expand permitted out-of-region use of IPv4 space)

[David Huberman]

Hi Bill,

I agree with what you've written and its implications.  The time for RIRs being anything other than local language/time/etc is passed, in my humble opinion.  

But here's the problem: I do not believe LACNIC would agree with such a policy. Right now they're debating allowing an inter-RIR transfer policy that ONLY allows inbound transfers; it disallows space from leaving the region.   A two-way policy is a non-starter.  (And the one-way policy is facing stiff opposition.)
 
So if you believe me - if you believe a global policy cannot be passed right now because at least one RIR won't agree to it - what do we do here in the ARIN region, where ARIN staff are applying policy in a way which restricts use? Staff have told us they need a policy change to do anything.

Thanks
/david

David R Huberman
Principal, Global IP Addressing
Microsoft Corporation

> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Herrin [mailto:bill at herrin.us]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 2:25 PM
> To: David Huberman <David.Huberman at microsoft.com>
> Cc: ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net) <ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Support for 2015-5 (Expand permitted out-of-region
> use of IPv4 space)
> 
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 4:36 PM, David Huberman
> <David.Huberman at microsoft.com> wrote:
> > Ignoring what 2015-5 says and how it's constructed, what is your
> > opinion of the fundamental issue here?  Do you think network operators
> > should be allowed to take ARIN-issued resources and use them anywhere
> > in the world, regardless
> > of topology?   In answering this, please understand that
> > ARIN's current procedure is "NO".
> 
> 
> Hi David,
> 
> I think that's the wrong question. I think that's a destructive question with
> answers that range from bad to worse.
> 
> A better question is: should we have regionally confined resource pools (and
> policies) or global resource pools (and policies)?
> 
> There was a proposition posted here a while back to the effect that the
> regional registries were only supposed to be a local interface to the global
> address system. They weren't supposed to diverge in to distinct governance
> regimes. Would that be better?
> 
> There is extra challenge in developing global policy, but it would in theory
> permit the assignments to be used globally without creating any "flag of
> convenience" fairness problems. But... is permission to employ addresses
> globally worth the cost of regional autonomy?
> 
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
> 
> 
> 
> --
> William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us Owner,
> Dirtside Systems ......... Web:
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.d
> irtside.com%2f&data=01%7c01%7cDavid.Huberman%40microsoft.com%7cec
> 5008008600445cd90308d2be142561%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%
> 7c1&sdata=ZKlYit9LM2K5w93SX5skcz9w3RUdtv8WePJU1YJztMA%3d>