<div dir="ltr"><p style="margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Verdana;min-height:16px"><br></p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Verdana">this is a kind of another bureau policy to add to ARIN current bureau policy. </p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Verdana">like the IPv4 leasing ( even there is no policy defining on this lease topic but it has been existing since the very beginning of internet born), the phenomena of out-of-region use is ubiquitous, there has already had many guys using its ARIN ips out of region. there also has those policy masters who says the Afrinic and Lacnic etc IPs can be used everywhere in the world. </p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Verdana">those policy masters clearly know the policy ( cited from <a href="http://NRO.ORG">NRO.ORG</a>) below. However, they can manipulate the sale of IPs in Afrinic and Lacnnic via a disguised M/A purchase to avoid the restriction of no sale of addresses in afrinic and Lacnnic. After the “sale” of the ips, those masters market that those ips can be used everywhere in the wordd. </p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Verdana;min-height:16px"><br></p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Verdana;min-height:16px"><br></p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Verdana;min-height:16px"><br></p>
<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top" style="width:89px;margin:0.5px;padding:5px">
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:11px;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(50,51,51)">AFRINIC</p>
</td>
<td valign="top" style="width:559px;margin:0.5px;padding:5px">
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:11px;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(50,51,51)">Does not allow sale of addresses, but recognises name changes and transfers of tangible assets associated with addresses. Requires submission of legal documents. Utilization is verified. May require new agreement.</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top" style="width:89px;margin:0.5px;padding:5px">
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:11px;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(50,51,51)">LACNIC</p>
</td>
<td valign="top" style="width:559px;margin:0.5px;padding:5px">
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:11px;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(50,51,51)">Does not allow sale of addresses, but recognizes name changes and transfers of tangible assets associated with addresses. Requires submission of legal documents. Utilization is verified. May require new agreement. Once LACNIC or any of its NIRs becomes unable, for the first time, to cover an IPv4 block allocation or assignment because of lack of resources, LIRs and/or End Users within the LACNIC region will be allowed to transfer IPv4 blocks.</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Verdana;min-height:16px"><br></p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Verdana;min-height:16px"><br></p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Verdana">I would like to understand the reasons behind such a proposal. it is just another ways for some big firm to justify their “out-of-region’’ and this proposal can also help those firm to avoid the 8.2,8.3/8.4 transfer to have their IPs ( either old and new ) to be used in AP or other regions. this is quite similar to how the UN works before UN want to impose sanction on some countries, UN need have a policy or reason to support such a sanction. and this proposal like the one “anti-flipping language” is try to pave the way for such a kind of no restriction on “IPv4 transfer”. </p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Verdana;min-height:16px"><br></p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Verdana;min-height:16px"><br></p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Verdana">Let use A as one of the example, suppose this proposal has been passed. how will ARIN evaluate its request of A to decide how much percentage or how large of a block can be used out of region? furthermore, considering A has an APNIC account and have many IPv4, how ARIN know its real utilisation rate of A’ other RIR account so as to approve A’s block size which can be used out of region. </p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Verdana;min-height:16px"><br></p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Verdana">I have done some research and find that Akamai has a total of 225,280 IPv4 in AP region. If Akamai is the one who send request to ARIN for asking a out-of-region use, please tell me how will ARIN decide the utilisation rate of that 225280 IPv4 in the other region? previously Akamai had receive a /12+/14 from ARIN, how many IPv4 from that /12+/14 can be used out of region ?</p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Verdana;min-height:16px"><br></p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:13px;font-family:Verdana">Jay</p><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 8:14 AM, Martin Hannigan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:hannigan@gmail.com" target="_blank">hannigan@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><br></div>Oops, buffer overflow. Wrong thread. Simply, +1 for this thread. <div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><div>
<br></div><div><span></span><br><br>On Friday, April 4, 2014, Martin Hannigan <<a href="mailto:hannigan@gmail.com" target="_blank">hannigan@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><br></div>Same, +1. <span></span><br>
<br>
Which isn't Section 11 a better place to address this?<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
-M<<br>
<br>
<br>
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 1:55 PM, David Huberman <<a>David.Huberman@microsoft.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Support in principle, strongly opposed as written.<br>
><br>
> ARIN is a registry, not a regulator. Networks with global reach should not have regulatory rules placed on them by ARIN whose job is primarily to record number assignments, not make rules which affect network topology. Thus I support the idea that numbers should not be bound to arbitrary political boundaries.<br>
><br>
> I oppose this draft as written, however, because it adds hundreds of words to NRPM where only a few are needed to address the stated goal. The problem statement indicates: " The next logical option is to discuss a proposal that clearly permits out of region use without limits". Well ok. If you wanted to do that explicitly in policy, how about:<br>
><br>
> Section 1.x - ARIN-issued number resources may be used on equipment located anywhere.<br>
><br>
> All the rest of the text that I see in this draft come down to, "if you have resources in other RIRs, we'll audit them to ensure you aren't double dipping." Policy already allows that:<br>
><br>
> "ISPs must have efficiently utilized all previous allocations and at least 80% of their most recent allocation<br>
> in order to receive additional space."<br>
><br>
> " In order to justify an additional assignment, end-users must have efficiently utilized at least 80% of all<br>
> previous assignments, and must provide ARIN with utilization details"<br>
><br>
> We need to simplify NRPM and start peeling back a lot of this over-regulatory policy. To do so, let's write clearer and more concise policy proposals, please.<br>
><br>
> David R Huberman<br>
> Microsoft Corporation<br>
> Senior IT/OPS Program Manager (GFS)<br>
><br>
><br>
> From: <a>arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net</a> [mailto:<a>arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net</a>] On Behalf Of David Farmer<br>
> Sent: Friday, March 28, 2014 10:23 AM<br>
> To: ARIN PPML<br>
> Subject: [arin-ppml] Update: 2014-1 Out of Region Use<br>
><br>
> Based on the discussion at the PPC in Atlanta (link below), the following changes are proposed.<br>
><br>
> <a href="https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ppc_nanog60/webcast/2014-1.mov" target="_blank">https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ppc_nanog60/webcast/2014-1.mov</a><br>
><br>
> There is a summary of the changes and a red-lined version of the policy text with new and deleted text highlighted following the complete Draft Policy.<br>
><br>
> ----<br>
><br>
> Draft Policy ARIN-2014-1<br>
> Out of Region Use<br>
><br>
> Date: 28 March 2014<br>
><br>
> Problem statement:<br>
><br>
> Current policy neither clearly forbids nor clearly permits out or region use of ARIN registered resources. This has created confusion and controversy within the ARIN community for some time. Earlier work on this issue has explored several options to restrict or otherwise limit out of region use. None of these options have gained consensus within the community. The next logical option is to discuss a proposal that clearly permits out of region use without limits, beyond those already existing in policy.<br>
><br>
> Permitting out of region use, however, poses issues that have to be addressed by policy and adjustments to operational practice. Out of region use needs a clear definition and any operational practices based on that definition must not be unnecessarily burdensome. It is significantly more difficult and costly for ARIN Staff to independently verify the justification and utilization of resources that are reassigned or otherwise used outside of the ARIN service region. There needs to be recognition of this difference in policy and associated operational practices, especially the cost differential when there is more than an incidental amount of out of region use.<br>
><br>
> Policy statement:<br>
><br>
> Create new Section X;<br>
><br>
> X. Out of Region Use<br>
><br>
> ARIN registered resources may be used outside the ARIN service region and such use is valid justification for new or additional resources. Resources are considered to be used outside the region if the user or customer service address or the technical infrastructure address, such as the point of presence (POP), data center, or other similar location, are outside the ARIN service region.<br>
><br>
> There is a general presumption that requesting resources from ARIN for use within another RIR's service region duplicates any resources held by the organization with that other RIR. Therefore, the organization should, not hold any resources with the other RIR, or demonstrate that all such resources held are utilized based on ARIN policy requirements, or provide an operational justification clarifying how the resources from ARIN will not duplicate any underutilize</blockquote>
</div>
</div></div><br>_______________________________________________<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">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/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br></blockquote></div><br></div>