Operators in multiple regions should be able to get resources from any or all of the RIRs that serve the regions where they are operating…
If they are advertising global aggregates, then it is logical for them to deal with a single RIR to maximize aggregation. If they are announcing geographically specific routes, then it makes more sense for them to obtain resources locally according to their geography. Territorial exclusivity is, in fact, one of the fundamental tenants of ICP-2. So the short answer to your question is YES, with caveats regarding the (minority) of operators that are operating in multiple regions. I take exception to your characterization of any of the RIRs as “bad policies” or “extortionate fees” as I don’t believe that is the case in any of the RIRs. Further, the fees in each RIR are set by the board which is elected by the RIR members. If you feel the fees are extortionate, then elect a different board. All of the RIRs have an open public policy process, so if you feel that the policies are bad, change them. I’m pretty sure you’re aware of this, having served on the AC and having authored a recent policy proposal in the ARIN region. Admittedly, I think your proposal would constitute bad policy. At the end of the day, while the RIRs are industry trade associations, the policies by which they administer IP number resources in their respective regions are akin to governance. Organizations have the same rights to change RIRs as they have when it comes to changing governments. If you don’t like the RIR fees/Government taxes and/or you don’t like the RIR policies/Government laws, then you can, indeed, vote with your feet by packing up your operation and going elsewhere. What you shouldn’t be able to do is enjoy all the benefits of being in a given location without being subject to the same rules, restrictions, and fees as any local-only operator. Owen > On Apr 7, 2019, at 7:57 AM, Mueller, Milton L <[email protected]> wrote: > > Let me see if I understand this sentiment that we want to discourage "forum > shopping." > > Are the people who say this advocating that RIRs should be insulated from any > competition, that number resource users should be locked in to a particular > RIR because of their geographic region (despite many of them having > facilities and operations in multiple regions) and there should be no way for > them to escape bad policies or extortionate fees by "voting with their feet." > Did I get that right? > > Whose interests does that serve? > From: ARIN-PPML <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Erik Bais > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Sent: Saturday, April 6, 2019 5:15 AM > To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 > Resource Transfers > > Hi, > > I would like to propose to focus on number resources and limit the usage of > IPv4, IPv6 or AS numbers in policy text as much as possible. > We made this step in the RIPE transfer policies a couple years ago ( example > the RIPE transfer policy : https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-682 > <https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-682> ) > > It will allow for easier / more general policies and it still allows to limit > transfer limitations for specific resources.. like 16 bit AS’ns or IPv4 > space. (scares resources ) > > On the topic of looking for shopping for the better RIR policies or cheaper > RIR’s, I don’t think that is something we should be too worried about. > Most RIR’s have a requirement for usage in the service region where the RIR > is anyway. > > Dis-allowing transfers for IPv6 and saying to people that they would have to > renumber and request new resources from other RIR’s, will not increase the > adoption of v6 usage. > > I would support the change to the inter-rir transfer section of the section > 8.4 > > Regards, > Erik Bais > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > <https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml> > Please contact [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> if you experience any > issues.
_______________________________________________ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
