On 10/7/2013 4:37 PM, John Curran wrote:
We don't consider virtual "technical infrastructure" for assessing the need for addresses, even though service providers may use such when adding customers. The additional customers driving such virtual growth are readily verifiable. The alternative would be to consider virtual equipment (e.g. VM's) as actual technical infrastructure and that would effectively open the justification of unlimited resources by any party without any actual equipment or customer growth.
I'm pretty sure that we must "consider virtual equipment (e.g. VM's) as actual technical infrastructure". The actual businesses that are being built on the Internet appear to have outpaced policy here.
If I host a large computing cloud or storage cloud, I really need to be able to get additional address space as that cloud grows. There may be no addresses that are "assigned to a specific customer" or even a "pool of addresses that are used by specific customers" in the traditional ISP sense. In fact, I might consider myself an end-user of IP space, not an ISP, and be attempting to get address space as an end-user. And the growth of the exposed IP surface of that cloud may or may not be a linear function of the physical resources I throw at it. In fact, as the physical resources get more powerful, I would expect not.
When Google comes back for more address space under the proposed policy, will they be denied because this week more Google searches are being initiated (by what Google considers their "customers") from outside of the ARIN region?
Matthew Kaufman _______________________________________________ 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.
