I was always under the impression that companies that operate in more than
one region usually obtain their number resources from their home region,
and use these worldwide.
I once worked with a company who was based in the Netherlands, but has a
presence all over the world. I was involved in their networks in the USA,
using a portion of a class B legacy space, which was at the time assigned
to RIPE. However, we used it in Texas and Florida. We dealt with the
geolocation problem by setting up proxy servers with address space from a
local ISP for internet access, and to save cross ocean bandwidth for
general internet access. Places like Netflix treated this space as
Europe, even though the space was SWIP'ed to the USA.
It is my understanding that section 9 of the NRPM allows out of region
use. Is there a reason you do not simply leave the resources registered
with ARIN? Is it because local affiliates, or otherwise?
Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017, David Huberman wrote:
I am a US-based company and I operate a network on multiple continents.
I need to be able to move space from my home RIR of ARIN to other regions as I
expand my network overseas.
The current policy that has been in effect for many years allows me to operate
my network properly -- using ARIN blocks in ARIN, APNIC blocks in APNIC, and
RIPE blocks in RIPE. The policy is predictable and I can plan network growth
around it.
If this proposal passes, it will shut off transfers between ARIN and APNIC.
This will hurt my business's finances. We purchased addresses in the ARIN
region wth the intention of moving them to APNIC in the future. We did so
because the size blocks we needed were not available in the APNIC region. So
now we are talking about hurting my business for ... what reason? How do
network operations benefit from this proposal?
On Aug 18, 2017, at 6:10 AM, [email protected] wrote:
I would not consider an RIR that has NIR units that do not have a bi
directional transfer policy to comply with the policy of ARIN to only permit
transfers to/from those with a bi directional transfer policy.
Thus, I support the statement being added in this draft to make this more clear.
Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.
On Thu, 17 Aug 2017, WOOD Alison * DAS wrote:
Thank you for the feedback on this draft policy to date. I would appreciate
any other thoughts or comments on this draft policy.
For review, Draft Policy 2017-6 is intended to add the following conditions on
Inter RIR transfers to section 8.4:
Recipient RIR policy must not permit transfers to other RIRs or NIRs whose
policies do not support bi-directional transfers.
And the problem statement on this draft policy is:
Currently ARIN's requirement that inter-RIR transfer policies be reciprocal has
a glaring hole in it in that RIRs which have NIRs and/or a two-hop RIR transfer
process can be used to circumvent the intent of the requirement. Rather than
eliminate the requirement, a better approach would be to close the loophole.
All feedback is appreciated.
Thank you
-Alison Wood
_______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
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.
