On Sep 25, 2012, at 2:05 AM, Wayne E Bouchard <[email protected]> wrote:
> It presents no technical problem but has always been considered
> politically inadvisable. I mean, there are multiple registries for a
> reason that goes beyond mere oranization and load sharing.
Always? Actually, no.
Back when the RIRs were first starting up, we pushed multinationals to obtain
their addresses from the RIR that served the region in which their headquarters
were located. The theory was that a single RIR would be better able to ensure
addresses were used efficiently and it was more likely routing announcements
could be limited. I personally got into a long argument with folks from Shell
who wanted addresses from APNIC for their AP region networks and were
displeased when I pushed them to RIPE-NCC ("Royal Dutch Shell", headquarters in
The Hague). I believe Geert Jan DeGroot at RIPE-NCC (who tended to be a
stickler for those sorts of things) got into similar arguments with folks from
Mitsubishi in Europe.
Of course, the cynical might suggest that over time, such niceties as
conserving address space and routing slots would, of course, take a lower
priority to marking territory and RIR revenues, but who would be that cynical?
Regards,
-drc
