On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 12:28 PM, John Curran <[email protected]> wrote: > On Dec 24, 2014, at 11:50 AM, William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote: >> I think this is bad policy which will encourage registry shopping by >> large multinational companies who really don't need yet another >> advantage over their smaller competitors. Worse than just making ARIN >> a flag-of-convenience registry to the world, it includes just enough >> in-region requirement to shut out small players. I reiterate my >> OPPOSITION to this draft policy. > > Is there are any change to the draft policy which would address > your concerns regarding it? More specifically, if the community > support for the policy ends up being strong due to a perception > that it addresses an existing policy flaw, is there any change > that would mitigate the harm to small players that you outline > above?
Hi John, I'm don't think there is such a change but there are a few things that jump out at me as being particularly offensive. 1. This issue is not a concern for ARIN number resources overall. Now and for the foreseeable future it frankly only matters for IPv4 addresses. Crafting a one-size-fits-all policy here needlessly complicates the matter. No one here cares whether AS numbers or IPv6 addresses are used out-region and burning one single staff minute analyzing the acceptability of such is a waste. Worse, crafting the policy to act reasonably with the other number resources corrupts its ability to deal correctly with the IPv4 situation. 2. I disagree with spinning it as an existing policy flaw. There's a ARIN -implementation- flaw here. Classically and consistent with the spirit of ICP2, the RIRs allow minor outregion use of addresses that's incidental to an in-region operation. And you know what? You haven't been the slightest bit shy about deciding that external documents like ICP2 and RFC2050 constrain ARIN activity in other matters like the /10 for large scale NAT. I don't know how ARIN got itself twisted up where it couldn't find the limits of "minor" and "incidental" but trying to override that with rigid policy requirements is going to be problematic. 3. Registry shopping is a bad bad bad idea. It defeats and is directly contrary to the whole ICP2 spirit of LOCAL self-governance. As written, this policy doesn't discourage region shopping, it codifies it. RIPE policies gotcha down? No sweat, we'll buy a cage in Ashburn Equinix and use that as a jumping board to shop ARIN instead. As long as you're big enough to afford that cage and the servers inside, this policy removes all limits. 4. Limiting the registrants to folks making a notional use of IP addresses or a single AS number somewhere inside the ARIN region just makes it worse. There's already a fairness gulf between shops large enough to employ a dedicated number resource group and those who must rely on consultants and luck to find a path through the registries' arcane rules. The 1AS/22/44 rule poses no real obstacle to a multinational grabbing addresses where convenient but it sows even more challenge and confusion for a smaller shop. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected] Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> May I solve your unusual networking challenges? _______________________________________________ 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.
