I would like to quote just one section of Milton's post. >Counsel asserts:
> "the policy will lead to an increase in fraudulent applications from out of > region requestors, and issuance of resources to those who fraudulently > file, since ARIN is not as well positioned to successfully discover such fraud > by out of region requestors." > This is a legitimate concern. But I see no reason why staff cannot deny > resources to entities that cannot produce adequate evidence for their claims. > Other tweaks to be policy could be conceived that might address this issue, > bearing in mind that two previous attempts to define thresholds were not > acceptable to the community. Further, the incentive for most fraudulent > applications comes from IPv4 scarcity, which has a very limited time horizon. Historically, there have been bad actors who have successfully obtained substantial IPv4 space from ARIN without having any customers or significant equipment in the region. A common method is to set up a routing infrastructure inside the ARIN region, and backhaul the traffic to the customers who all reside and operate in a region which has no IPv4 space available. And in my opinion, it is this type of scenario which Counsel is referring to. The counter-argument to this concern is to hold off enacting 2014-1 until ARIN exhaustion. And I haven't heard a counter-counter-argument. If 2014-1 were not enacted until IPv4 was out of play, and the only resources that ARIN would be giving out are IPv6 blocks and AS numbers, then I fail to see why the fraud concern is valid. If I'm mistaken, I'd like to know how so. Regards, David David R Huberman Principal, Global IP Addressing Microsoft Corporation _______________________________________________ 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.
