<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 3:59 PM, David Farmer <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:farmer@umn.edu" target="_blank">farmer@umn.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">On 9/14/13 22:58 , Matthew Petach wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Why not simply use a phrase like "significant fraction" rather than<br>
"plurality"?<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
The problem with significant fraction, its overly vague, while plurality may not be a commonly use every day word, it does have a precise meaning and in this context that is "more than any other RIR's region". However, since there are 5 regions the smallest possible plurality would be slightly more than 20% within the ARIN region. However, in most cases a plurality will be more than that.<br>
<br>
Rather than significant fraction, if the community could agree on a percentage say 20%, 25%, or maybe 30%, as a minimum percentage within the region that would be a little simpler than plurality, and be actually something staff could implement. I do not believe significant fraction as the standard would give staff a policy that can be implemented.<div class="im">
<br></div></blockquote><div><br><br></div><div>Can you clarify if this policy only applies<br>to *new* requests, or if it is meant to apply<br>to *all* number resources requested from<br></div><div>ARIN?<br><br>I have a serious problem with trying to assign<br>
a fixed value if this is meant to apply to existing<br>as well as new number resources. But if it it only<br>applies to new requests, and the requirement for<br>a plurality of the *new* request being used to service<br>needs somewhere within the ARIN region, I see that<br>
as less onerous than the notion of a plurality of *all*<br>number resources having to be within the ARIN<br>region.<br><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im">
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
change<br>
<br>
" a plurality of resources<br>
requested from ARIN must be justified by technical infrastructure and<br>
customers located within the ARIN service region, and any located<br>
outside the region must be interconnected to the ARIN service region."<br>
<br>
to<br>
<br>
" a significant fraction of the resources requested from ARIN must be<br>
justified by technical infrastructure or customers located within the ARIN<br>
service region, and any located outside the region must be interconnected<br>
to the ARIN service region."<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
If we don't like plurality for whatever reason, I'd suggest;<br>
<br>
"a minimum of X% of the resources requested from ARIN must be justified by technical infrastructure or customers located within the ARIN service region, and any located outside the region must be interconnected to the ARIN service region."<br>
<br>
Where X% is something like 20%, 25%, or 30%.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>So, how about something like this, then?<br><br></div><div>"a minimum of 20% of the *new* resources requested from ARIN must be <br>justified by technical infrastructure or customers physically located within<br>
the borders of ARIN member countries, and any technical infrastructure<br>or customers located outside the ARIN region must be physically interconnected <br>to the ARIN service region"<br><br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im"><br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
(representing a global network that spans 4 RIRs, but has no<br>
customers, I also advocate changing from "and customers"<br>
to "or customers", to relieve networks such as the one I work<br>
for from being unfairly excluded from obtaining ARIN resources.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
I'm ok with "technical infrastructure or customers", I've been debating between, and, or, and and/or myself. Are there any objections to "technical infrastructure or customers"?</blockquote><div>
<br><br></div><div>No objections to "technical infrastructure or customers", nope.<br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">
<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I will also note for the record that as port density increases,<br>
the number of devices we use is going down, not up.<br>
<br>
They cost a metric shit ton more, and suck up more power<br>
and need more cooling--but if you're measuring by "number<br>
of boxes" rather than "capability of boxes", I think the expectation<br>
that the number of boxes in a network will always be increasing,<br>
as someone else further down in the thread claimed, is prima<br>
facie false.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
I don't think we want to be measuring the size of the network, at least the number of devices used to build the network. Just that there is a network, or portion of a global network, within the region.</blockquote><div>
<br><br></div><div>OK; so "20%" could be measured in terms of cost of devices in the<br>ARIN region, rather than device count, in the case of a network<br>that has a few very large, very expensive network elements in<br>
the ARIN region, but hundreds of small, inexpensive nodes<br></div><div>outside of the ARIN region.<br><br></div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im"><br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Matt<br>
<br>
(for the record, while I'm suggesting alternate language that<br>
I think might be more palatable, as currently proposed,<br>
I oppose this proposal)<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Do you opposed to the whole approach? Or, Are there changes to the text that would allow you to support the Draft? Or, is there another approach to the problem you would propose?<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div> I keep feeling like we're approaching the problem from the<br>wrong angle. :/ I don't have a better approach yet, but I'm<br>trying to noodle over it. Fundamentally, we're trying to ensure<br>
that entities that obtain number resources in the ARIN region<br></div><div>are registered with physical addresses somewhere in the<br>ARIN region, and that the addresses get used primarily in<br></div><div>the ARIN region, right? Maybe we should stick to simpler<br>
language like that, rather than explicitly trying to identify<br>percentages of customers, or costs of devices?<br><br></div><div>Thanks!<br><br>Matt<br></div><div><br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Thanks<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
-- <br>
==============================<u></u>==================<br>
David Farmer Email: <a href="mailto:farmer@umn.edu" target="_blank">farmer@umn.edu</a><br>
Office of Information Technology<br>
University of Minnesota<br>
2218 University Ave SE Phone: <a href="tel:1-612-626-0815" value="+16126260815" target="_blank">1-612-626-0815</a><br>
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: <a href="tel:1-612-812-9952" value="+16128129952" target="_blank">1-612-812-9952</a><br>
==============================<u></u>==================<br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>