50 States of ARIN

[Jim Fleming]

On Friday, February 28, 1997 11:18 AM, John LeRoy Crain[SMTP:John.Crain at RIPE.NET] wrote:
@ 
@  David Schwartz <davids at WIZNET.NET> writes:
@  * On Fri, 28 Feb 1997, John LeRoy Crain wrote:
@  * 
@  * > Your idea suggests giving a fifth of IPv4 address space to the USA.
@  * 
@  * 	Actually, that's incorrect. His idea suggests giving a fifth of
@  * IPv4 to REGISTRIES in the USA to allocate to whomever their policies
@  * state.  Since the majority of the unallocated useful IPv4 space is in
@  * IANA's hands right now (212/8-223/8 and 64/8-126/8, I believe), and IANA
@  * is in the USA, what is he proposing to change? 
@ 
@ O.K. terminology was maybe incorrect.
@ 
@ Which state do organisations in Havana or Vancouver go to?
@ 
@ At the moment the registration of IPv4 is in a simple structure, roughly;
@ 
@ 
@ 				IANA 
@ 		  	  	|
@ 	InterNIC		APNIC		RIPE
@ 
@ 	For the western		Eastern		Europe and surrounding
@ 	hemisphere				areas
@ 
@ 				
@ Underneath this there are some local structures. Also there are some 
@ other organisations, apparantly, that issue IPv4.
@ 
@ 
@ What would allocating a fifth of the address space to registries in
@ the USA accomplish. Why a registry in each state? What not also a
@ registry for each major Canadian region, each Russian province, each
@ country in Europe and each island in the bahamas? Then we get the 
@ Asian Pacific region, I don't think there are enough /8's of IPv4
@ for this system and limiting it to the USA is of course not
@ reasonable. If we were to say a /18 or maybe even a /16 to each state
@ then maybe, maybe, it would be workable. Of course each state would 
@ need to be able to supply a forum for registration which could be trusted 
@ by the Local IP's.
@ 

A /18 or /16 to a "major" registry is not large enough.

As you can see if you study the existing allocations.
Most of the major registries currently manage several
/8 spaces.

A registry needs a "critical mass" of resources to
make economic sense. Also, it is easier to deal
with a few hundred registries around the world
at this point in time.

Quite frankly, I am somewhat surprised about the
comments regarding the U.S. and 50 registries
out of maybe 200.

Everyone has been happy with 8 of the 9 Root
Name Servers in the U.S. for years. I have
advocated spreading them around the world
and people criticized that.

Now, I suggest that the U.S. focus on building
50 registries to spread the wealth around and
people seem to be complaining that the other
150 registries would not be enough for the
rest of the world.

Again, keep in mind a U.S. ISP company could
still lease an IP block from a registry located
in India, if one is developed there. Likewise,
an ISP in India could lease a block from
a registry located in Montana. The routers
do not know who handled the lease.

I keep hearing that many countries want to
participate in the Internet infrastructure
development. That is great. Post your
list here of where you propose to open
registries to handle a /8 space. If Canada
wants to open some great. If Mexico
wants to open some great.

P.S. Keep in mind that Canada recently
CLOSED their IP registry, so I question
whether they are going to open one
tomorrow. If they do, that would be great.

--
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation

e-mail:
JimFleming at unety.net
JimFleming at unety.s0.g0 (EDNS/IPv8)