<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 11:45 AM, 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">I'm going to break this up into separate sub threads.<div class="im"><br>
<br>
On 9/17/13 10:20 , Matthew Petach wrote:<br>
<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 3:59 PM, David Farmer <<a href="mailto:farmer@umn.edu" target="_blank">farmer@umn.edu</a><br></div><div class="im">
<mailto:<a href="mailto:farmer@umn.edu" target="_blank">farmer@umn.edu</a>>> wrote:<br>
<br>
On 9/14/13 22:58 , Matthew Petach wrote:<br>
</div></blockquote>
...<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 requested from ARIN must be justified by technical<br>
infrastructure and 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<br>
must be justified by technical infrastructure or customers located<br>
within the ARIN service region, and any located outside the region must be<br>
interconnected to the ARIN service region."<br>
<br>
<br>
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<br>
justified by technical infrastructure or customers located within<br>
the ARIN service region, and any located outside the region must be<br>
interconnected to the ARIN service region."<br>
<br>
Where X% is something like 20%, 25%, or 30%.<br>
<br>
<br>
So, how about something like this, then?<br>
<br>
"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<br>
interconnected to the ARIN service region"<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
I will modify the current language adding "new" making it "a plurality of new resources requested" before the text freeze, I think that clarifies the current intent. Are there any objections to the "new resources requested" language?<br>
<br>
However, I'd like to hear more comments in support of a flat 20% standard before I'm willing to make that change, as I think that significantly changes the intent, at least in the view of some. As an Individual I'd support a flat 20% standard. But as the primary shepherd for the proposal, I'm a little worried we would loose as much or more support than we would gain with that change. So, I need a better read on what the community as a whole thinks of a flat 20% standard before making that change. No matter what, I will include that in the questions I take to the floor of the PPM.<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>The concern I have with "plurality" is that that I may not know<br>with certainty that a new request will meet that definition; I may<br>intend for it to be split 50/40/10 between ARIN/RIPE/LACNIC<br>
regions; but then upon deployment, discover that the LACNIC<br></div><div>backbone nodes required more space than expected, as did<br>RIPE, and my split ends up being 40/45/15. Now it's no longer<br>a plurality of space in the ARIN region. It's easier to plan to<br>
</div><div>hit a target percentage than try to hit a multi-way ratio given<br>the unpredictable and changeable forces that impact real<br>world rollouts.<br><br></div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
As for some of the other additions I'm not sure "physically located within the borders of ARIN member countries" add much verses "located within the ARIN service region", or "physically interconnected" vs. "interconnected". In your opinion what do these changes add?</blockquote>
<div><br></div><div>(warning--philosophical weeds ahead; feel free to<br></div><div>ignore anything beyond this point as completely<br>pointless to the actual topic being discussed)<br><br></div><div>I always wonder what "the ARIN service region" actually<br>
entails. I know what country borders are; what do we make<br>of places like offshore oil platforms (sealand?)--is it covered<br>by the service region, even if it's not one of the member<br></div><div>countries? If a business address is listed in the ARIN<br>
</div><div>'region', but not within the borders of any member country,<br></div><div>does it help the LEA desire prompting this policy?<br>I realize I'm splitting hairs, so feel free to ignore this<br>philosophical ramble; under ordinary circumstances,<br>
language like "located within the ARIN region" is good<br>enough for us, because we're not concerned with political<br>boundaries and law enforcement jurisdictions. I just realized<br>that if the intent is to provide an address so that a particular<br>
</div><div>LEA can track down wrongdoers, what do we do about the<br>portions of the ARIN service region that aren't associated<br>with a specific country? Or is the ARIN service region<br>strictly bound by the borders of the countries involved,<br>
and anything outside of that belongs to a different RIR,<br>or does it float up to the IANA level? Which service<br>region does the IP address pool on a jet airliner flying<br>over the atlantic ocean belong to? Does the entity<br>
making use of the addresses go out of compliance<br>if all the aircraft using the IPs leave the ARIN region<br>at the same time?<br><br></div><div>Likewise, does the aircraft's network still count as<br>being "interconnected" to the ARIN region, even<br>
with no physical network layer involved? If that<br>counts, is it any different from a network that<br></div><div>runs a VPN link from outside the ARIN region<br>to a device inside the ARIN region, for the<br>purposes of claiming the networks are<br>
</div><div>"interconnected". For that matter, as long as<br>the different network elements connect in<br>some fashion to "the Internet", doesn't that<br>satisfy the "interconnected" clause, in which<br>
case, does having it in actually add anything<br></div><div>to the policy above simply saying "the number<br></div><div>resources requested must be used on the<br>Internet somewhere"?<br><br></div><div>OK. Enough late-night philosophizing. Back to<br>
doing some real work. ^_^;<br><br>Matt<br><br></div><div><br></div><div><br><br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">
<br>
<br>
Thanks<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>