*shrug* I thought this was to allow "out of region use". Not to work around Section 12.
Best, -M< On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 5:59 PM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Oct 22, 2014, at 2:38 PM, Martin Hannigan <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 5:16 PM, John Curran <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Oct 22, 2014, at 3:49 PM, Milton L Mueller <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> "ARIN reserves the right to request a listing of all the applicant's >>>>>> number holdings in the region(s) of proposed use" >>>>> >>>>> I feel it should be eliminated. As it was mentioned at the microphone >>>>> in the Baltimore meeting, ARIN isn't consistent in applications of >>>>> language like and appear to be widely abused. ARIN already has >>>>> Section 12. Why is that not good enough? >>>> >>>> I agree with Marty here. We could eliminate that, if you all think Section >>>> 12 is enough. >>> >>> Milton - >>> >>> Note that NRPM Section 12 provides only that "ARIN may review the current >>> usage >>> of any resources maintained in the ARIN database." - it would not appear >>> that >>> this language provides ARIN the ability to request information and >>> utilization >>> on resources held in other regions, as envisioned by the present 2014-1 >>> draft >>> policy text. >>> >>> If you wish to drop the language pertaining to obtaining a list of >>> applicants >>> number resources and rely on NRPM 12 for this purpose instead, then it would >>> appear necessary to revise NRPM 12's scope to cover resources held outside >>> of >>> the region. This community may want to carefully consider the merits and >>> issues with each potential approach before deciding one way or the other. >>> >> >> >> Not sure why ARIN needs to know what other RIR resources are in use by >> a company or what their utilization rate is beyond the public whois >> database(s). If I'm in compliance with the other RIR's policies its >> none of ARINs business outside of how I am using _their_ resources. >> Section 12 should be more than adequate for their needs*. > > When we are allowing out-of-region usage, there is a desire to verify > that organizations aren't "double-dipping" and getting numbers from > more than one RIR for the same address need. > >> >> This also continues to contain broken language with respect to >> internet operational realities. >> >> Why should ARIN dictate what facilities and services I can and can't >> use to justify resources? Ex: "The services and facilities used to >> justify the need for ARIN resources that will be used out of region >> cannot also be used to justify resource requests from another RIR." > > Again, the intent here isn't to dictate what you can and can't use to > justify resources, but, to at least make a good faith effort at indicating > that you're not supposed to use the need for 1,000 addresses to get > 5,000 addresses, 1,000 from each RIR. If you want to get 200 addresses > from each RIR, no problem, or however else you want to mix and match > within reason. > >> How will they even know? I don't give the other RIRs permission to >> share data and I don't give them permission to share data. I also have >> facilities and services (data centers, circuits, etc) that use ARIN >> resources along side with RIPE/APNIC/etc resources. This work is >> technically unsound. > > I don't think there is an intent to avoid the utilization you have or in any > way prohibit that. The intent is to avoid double-dipping from two RIRs for > the exact same need. > > Owen > > _______________________________________________ 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.
