Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-6: Allocation of IPv4 and IPv6 Address Space to Out-of-region Requestors - Revised

[Lee Dilkie]

Which leads me to think the era of the regional RIR is over. Time to move back to a single registry. -lee On 10/8/2013 2:40 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote: The virtual train has left the station.  80% of the servers we are doing now are Virtual and most need Internet IP addresses.  Almost all of the Internet IP addresses I’m assigning today are being assigned to virtual servers.  Treating them somehow like they are different than say a router in that they need one or more IP addresses makes no sense.  An Internet IP address - is an Internet IP address - is an Internet IP address - no matter what it is assigned to.    I don’t like adding needless restrictions.  -1   Steven Ryerse President 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338 770.656.1460 - Cell 770.399.9099- Office   ℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.         Conquering Complex Networks℠   From: Scott Leibrand [mailto:scottleibr...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 1:45 PM To: Steven Ryerse Cc: John Curran; Frank Bulk; <arin-ppml@arin.net> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-6: Allocation of IPv4 and IPv6 Address Space to Out-of-region Requestors - Revised   Steven,   Were you following the discussion at the NANOG PPC?  (It's being webcast.)   The challenge with what you're describing seems to be that many organizations who provide virtual servers, tunnels, or other similar services over virtual infrastructure have to justify their addresses based on how many customers they have (as their physical infrastructure isn't necessarily growing).   There will also be another round of discussion of this policy at the ARIN Public Policy meeting later this week.   -Scott   On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Steven Ryerse <srye...@eclipse-networks.com> wrote: I keep seeing questions going back and forth on this issue.  As I understand it two things are trying to be accomplished, first ARIN issued resources are to be primarily used on equipment located within the ARIN region, and second there needs to be some sort of legal presence with contact information in the ARIN region that can be kept in the ARIN database for everyone including law enforcement to access.  Can't the policy simply say there must be a legal presence and the resources must be used within the ARIN region, and that resources can be de-allocated if either ceases to be true? The elegance of the Internet is that it can expand an organization's reach - including across RIR boundaries, so who cares if a web server or a virtual server (or whatever) that is physically located in the ARIN region is access by tons of folks outside the region.   There just needs to be a legal presence and contact information to go along with that allocation.  Trying to apply some test such as majority or plurality will just cause unnecessary complexity and the current policies are complex enough without needlessly adding to it.  My 2 cents. Steven Ryerse President 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338 770.656.1460 - Cell 770.399.9099- Office ℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.                      Conquering Complex Networks℠ -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of John Curran Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 1:16 PM To: Frank Bulk Cc: <arin-ppml@arin.net> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-6: Allocation of IPv4 and IPv6 Address Space to Out-of-region Requestors - Revised On Oct 8, 2013, at 9:26 AM, Frank Bulk <frnk...@iname.com> wrote: > John, > > What if Acme Hosting, Inc., located in the Silicon Valley, found a > niche offering virtualized servers for Asian customers who want to > have their Internet-based services hosted more closely to the North American market. > > Acme Hosting and their infrastructure are clearly in the U.S., but > their customers are not in the ARIN region. Their physical infrastructure would only qualify for modest address space in accordance with policy, and this would not change with the addition of virtualized servers on existing equipment. > Does the policy, as currently written, preclude Acme Hosting from > requesting more address space as their Asian customer base grows? Under current policy, they may request additional addresses as their customers grow.  Under the current revised policy text, we would not consider their customers who are not in region.  This side effect (hosting companies not being able to consider customers who are out of region) may or may not be desirable, but is understandable given the additional of customer region as criteria. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.   _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.

_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.