I recently had to submit two requests, one to ARIN and one to RIPE because of an expansion that involved an Amsterdam POP. It would have been really nice to be able to just break off a /22 or /23 for that location and not have to deal with RIPE.
Thanks, Jeff On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 1:58 PM, William Herrin <b...@herrin.us> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 7:40 PM, David Farmer <far...@umn.edu> wrote: >> On 2/7/14, 16:49 , William Herrin wrote: >>> If I had my druthers, the policy would be simply this: >>> >>> "ARIN prohibits any use of ARIN-assigned number resources which is: >>> (A) wholly and unambiguously within another RIR's region and >>> (B) more than incidental to an ARIN-region infrastructure." >>> >>> It's concise, it's clean, and it says everything that should be said >>> on the subject. >> >> >> Personally I'd be fine with this for IPv4, however this would put many >> currently operating networks in violation of policy. How do you resolve >> that? > > Howdy, > > You pulled a TLDR on me. Like I said at the end of the message: after > you admit that the reason you (the general you, not you specifically) > don't want this policy is that you've knowingly been doing things > wrong for the last decade plus, you add the following sentence to the > still concise policy. > > "ARIN number resources in use outside the region upon enaction of this > policy are grandfathered until recovered from their then-current > assignment." > > >> Now IPv6, this means multinational companies will need separate allocations >> from each RIR that they function within that RIR's region. It will be common >> for most multinational companies to need 3 or 4 separate allocations then, >> that will bloat the IPv6 route table. In IPv6 we are trying to minimize the >> number of non-aggregatable prefixes allocated, that is why we are doing >> sparse allocation for IPv6. > > You make a good point. I'd be satisfied limiting it to "IPv4 > addresses" instead of "number resources." > > Will you be drafting a global policy to the effect that registrants > are encouraged to get their entire IPv6 allocation from their single > home registry? Once again, it isn't appropriate for a regional > registry to act unilaterally in this regard. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > > -- > William D. Herrin ................ her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us > 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 (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues. -- Jeffrey A. Lyon, CISSP-ISSMP Founder, Black Lotus Communications mobile: (757) 304-0668 | gtalk: jeffrey.l...@gmail.com | skype: blacklotus.net _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
