Probably do what the rest of us do? Anchor the allocated prefix in "the region" and call it a day.
This seems seriously anti competitive, hence my own desire for a sixth, Depository?, RIR. If we had one or even many this would not be an issue. YMMV. Best, -M< > On Feb 25, 2015, at 16:43, Milton L Mueller <[email protected]> wrote: > > Jon > Yes, it's clear that you support the intent of 2014-1, which is to reconcile > actual staff practice with an approved policy. But it also sounds like you > think our threshold requirement can be gamed? The "speaking Romanian" issue > (or more likely, speaking Chinese) has been the subject of fierce debates. Do > you have specific suggestions for how we could fix this? > > --MM > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jon Lewis [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 1:10 PM >> To: Martin Hannigan >> Cc: Milton L Mueller; [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-1 Out of Region Use >> >> On Wed, 22 Oct 2014, Martin Hannigan wrote: >> >>>>> resources stating that this is a no op as well: already using >>>>> numbers in other regions and even ARIN (Curran) chimed in and said >>>>> that it wasn't a problem. >>>> >>>> I think you're interpretation of the situation is WAY out of line >>>> with the reality. Staff wants to STOP out of region use, and is doing >>>> so de facto because of the ambiguities in the policy. Yes, lots of >>>> people are already using numbers in other regions but if you want to >>>> continue to do that with new requests we need to solidify the policy >>>> and make it clear that this is ok. >>> >>> I don't think I took the discussion out of context at all. Both Matt >>> Petach and I stood up and said that we both use numbers out of region. >>> What's the big deal? John commented that it wasn't. If that's not >>> accurate, I'd be interested in your interpretation. >> >> Sorry about digging up this old thread... >> >> The problem (my problem anyway) is that I was just told by ARIN staff (Leslie >> Nobile at the event yesterday and confirmed just now via the >> helpdesk) that NRPM 4.5 can't be used by an ARIN member to request >> resources to be used out of region and, perhaps more troubling, that v4 >> space used out of region does not count towards calculating space >> utilization when an organization requests additional space from ARIN unless >> a less specific route is advertised in-region. >> >> I wasn't prepared to argue about either of these "policies" yesterday, but >> after searching the NRPM, I can't find any basis for either of them. So, I >> called the helpdesk to double-check / ask where in the NRPM I could find >> these "policies". I was told they're based on ARIN's interpretation of 2.2, >> specifically "The primary role of RIRs is to manage and distribute public >> Internet address space within their respective regions." Those are some very >> specific "policies" derived from a very vague sentence, which I think could >> just as reasonably be interpreted as meaning the RIRs exist to serve >> organizations headquartered in their respective service regions. >> You're a US corporation, ARIN is your RIR. You're a German corporation, >> RIPE is your RIR. >> >>>> "The requirement to have a minimal level of resources deployed in the >>>> region (/44 for IPv6, /22 for IPv4, 1 ASN) is an attempt to respond >>>> to law enforcement and some community concerns. An absolute >> threshold >>>> ensures that those applying for ARIN resources are actually operating >>>> in the region and not simply a shell company, but it avoids the known >>>> pitfalls of trying to use percentages of the organization's overall >>>> holdings to do that." >> >> I think I understand the intent of that requirement, but it's kind of >> pointless, >> especially as currently written: >> >> ARIN registered resources may be used outside the ARIN service region. >> Out of region use of IPv4, IPv6, or ASNs are valid justification for >> additional number resources if the applicant is currently using at least >> the equivalent of a /22 of IPv4, /44 of IPv6, or 1 ASN within the ARIN >> service region, respectively. >> >> If I were a European org wanting to get space from ARIN instead of RIPE, all >> I >> have to do is buy a VM on some ARIN-region cloud provider, get them to do >> BGP with my VM, and I've satisfied the requirement? If you think that's far >> fetched, see the recent thread on NANOG about cloud providers willing to >> do BGP with VMs. All that does is slightly increase the cost of violating >> the >> intent of the policy. >> >> I think 2014-1 shouldn't be necessary, but since current ARIN "policy" is >> based on an interpretation I disagree with of vague language in section 2, I >> suppose I'm all for passage of 2014-1. >> >> I just hope it doesn't have the sort of unintended consequences I think it >> could easily have. Does the helpdesk have many staffers who speak >> Romanian? >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Jon Lewis, MCP :) | I route >> | therefore you are _________ >> http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________ _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
