On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 6:27 PM, John Santos <[email protected]> wrote: > Huh? "Plurality" is a precisely defined mathematical concept.
Hi John, Plurality in a steady state system is easily understood. Address management is anything but a steady state system. What do you do when your ARIN region customer with the /19 closes his account, dropping your ARIN-region presence to 15%? Plurality applied to such a dynamic system is just begging for trouble. > The part I have a problem with is "a network located within the ARIN > service region." > > Networks intrinsically span service regions. Nodes can be scattered > across RIR regions, links between nodes can (and often do) cross regional > boundaries, and what's worse, nodes can move, both day-to-day (for > example, an international corporation moves its "www.support.foocorp.com" > web servers from a data center in Michigan to one in Luxembourg), and > totally dynamically, as in load-balancing and site failover, as well as > mobile nodes that can cross RIR boundaries at will. In which region is a > Liberian-registered cruise ship sailing out of San Diego currently exploring > the coast of Patagonia? Or an airplane or the ISS? > > There needs to be a degree of fuzziness. Fair point. Any absolute amount applied to the dynamic system that is address management is begging for trouble. Plurality just happens to be more confusing than most. > If we are going to force a > regional preponderance of the network (a much vaguer term than > "plurality"), to be in ARIN's geographical region, then (1) clearly a > network with 30% ARIN, 70% RIPE should be getting its resources from RIPE, > but (2) one with 29% ARIN, 28% RIPE, 25% APNIC, and the other 17% spread > across Africa and Latin America should get their resources from ARIN, > despite having a smaller footprint than the 1st organization. And what of > (3), which has 28.99% ARIN, 29.01% RIPE right now, but it could change in > the next 15 minutes? Maybe "within 5% of a plurality in the ARIN region" > would be a better metric. Well, I don't agree with that at all. The regionalized registry system makes no sense unless the overwhelming majority of the addresses used within the ARIN region come from ARIN and the overwhelming majority of the addresses used within the RIPE region come from RIPE. The idea that a multinational registrant might get his addresses from RIPE and then deploy half of them in North Carolina just doesn't make sense. Deploying addresses outside the region should be the exceptional case; if the majority of your addresses are deployed outregion, you're doing it wrong. Moreover, the law enforcement objective *is not served* if RIPE region addresses registered to RIPE region entities are deployed in the ARIN region where law enforcement has jurisdiction. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected] 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 _______________________________________________ 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.
