On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 1:51 PM Joe Provo <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 03:33:34PM +0200, Job Snijders wrote: > > Dear ARIN community, > [snip] > > It should be incontestable now that ARIN resource holders are at a > > disadvantage when it comes to RPKI services. > > Can I take this post as a response to my though experiment and > that we do not need the proposed policy if the TAL issue is > addressed? > > Thanks!
Hi Joe, I believe the proposed policy has positive benefits for the ARIN community, (even if the ARIN TAL issue is addressed in a satisfactory manner), because an RIR's operational characteristics may evolve over time. Right now we have a clear example where legal barriers imposed by ARIN have a negative impact on ARIN resource holders, but we have no assurances that even after the situation improves (assuming it improves), the situation doesn't degrade again, either through new legal barriers or service availability issues. We should also consider that different people may have different interpretations of what it means to "resolve" the ARIN TAL issue. I believe a degree of mobility (like exists for IPv4 resources and ASNs) is crucial for Internet operations. This is why many of us use open standards so they aren't locked into a single supplier. The problem statement in ARIN-2019-4 by no means was intended as an exhaustive list of supporting reasons, and of course it doesn't list any future issues. Kind regards, Job _______________________________________________ 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.
