<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">For those that are wondering if this is a real problem…<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I quote from a recent ARIN response to a resource transfer preapproval request:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12.152777671813965px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""> In accordance with section 2.2 of the NRPM, ARIN issues number resources for use within its region. Please confirm the requested number resources will be routed within the ARIN region. </span></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">If one takes this language literally, then the scenario where you have servers in USVI that you are addressing, but your anchor routes are held in upstream routers in Brazil and Uruguay would actually potentially preclude you from getting addresses from ARIN.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">This policy is, in fact, necessary to constrain ARIN staff and provide a clear mechanism by which ARIN region entities can obtain addresses through ARIN for their network, regardless of how far the footprint of their network extends.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">We all know that geography != topology. Further, the arbitrary lines drawn on a map with passport control stations sprinkled on either side mean very little to bits flowing through fiber. There are no border guards on the fiber networks, or if there are, they are generally not national border guards anyway.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">As such, unless you believe this policy causes actual harm, I urge you to support it.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Owen</div><div class=""><br class=""></div></body></html>