<div dir="ltr"><div>Not to speak for John, but I believe the plurality issue only applies to how the new request would be allocated.<br></div>bd<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Matthew Kaufman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:matthew@matthew.at" target="_blank">matthew@matthew.at</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">John, a few clarifying scenarios below, if you would be so kind as to apply your interpretation both pre- and post-policy to these as well:<br>
<br>
On 10/8/2013 6:15 PM, John Curran wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
On Oct 8, 2013, at 9:26 AM, Frank Bulk <<a href="mailto:frnkblk@iname.com" target="_blank">frnkblk@iname.com</a>><br>
wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
John,<br>
<br>
What if Acme Hosting, Inc., located in the Silicon Valley, found a niche<br>
offering virtualized servers for Asian customers who want to have their<br>
Internet-based services hosted more closely to the North American market.<br>
<br>
Acme Hosting and their infrastructure are clearly in the U.S., but their<br>
customers are not in the ARIN region.<br>
</blockquote>
Their physical infrastructure would only qualify for modest address space<br>
in accordance with policy, and this would not change with the addition of<br>
virtualized servers on existing equipment.<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Does the policy, as currently written, preclude Acme Hosting from requesting<br>
more address space as their Asian customer base grows?<br>
</blockquote>
Under current policy, they may request additional addresses as their customers<br>
grow. Under the current revised policy text, we would not consider their<br>
customers who are not in region. This side effect (hosting companies not being<br>
able to consider customers who are out of region) may or may not be desirable,<br>
but is understandable given the additional of customer region as criteria.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
So if I understand the above response, when Acme Hosting comes and requests more addresses for the VMs because they have a bunch more Asian customers who want a local server presence, you would approve now but deny with the new policy. Correct?<br>
<br>
And when Acme Hosting, who was doing a brisk business selling VMs to Asian customers, and now has 55% Asian customers in total comes to you to request a bunch of IP addresses for VMs that they are selling to a new set of *US based* customers, you would still approve now but deny (because of the plurality of existing usage) under the new policy?<br>
<br>
Does the same apply for Acme Websites, who was doing a similarly brisk business with the Asian market, but not for VMs but instead additional IP addresses on physical hosts used for non-SNI SSL hosting? Or are their additional IP addresses that they're assigning to physical hardware interfaces considered by ARIN to be "infrastructure" owned and operated by Acme Websites? (They do respond to ARP requests on the physical Ethernet segment, so it sure feels like they're "really there")<br>
<br>
How about for Acme Physical Servers, who was also doing a similarly brisk business with the Asian market, but instead of VMs, was out provisioning actual physical hardware for these customers? Are those physical servers which are in use by the Asian customers considered to be customer equipment owned and operated by Asian customers, or infrastructure equipment owned by Acme Physical Servers (who not only has physical possession of the servers, but also the root password and only lets the customers upload website data)?<br>
<br>
And what do you do when the above Acme Physical Servers gets approved for the space, but realizes they can save a bunch of money selling all their cloud servers on eBay and moving everyone to 1/10th of the remaining machines as VMs?<br>
<br>
I'm sure I'll have a small number of additional questions after learning the response for each of these, but this should give us enough to think about.<br>
<br>
Matthew Kaufman<br>
<br>
______________________________<u></u>_________________<br>
PPML<br>
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net" target="_blank">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br>
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>
<a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/<u></u>listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net" target="_blank">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>