Nice work Ron

Fri Jan 22 10:35:08 UTC 2021

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG wrote:

> No, this is not correct. LACNIC policies, state:

that LACNIC has contradicting statements is a problem
of LACNIC and you can not say others that the statement
of your choice is the one others must follow.

 > (look at the Spanish version, English seems not updated)

If there is a reservation statement such as "English
version is just informational and not authentic" or
"Certain restrictions may apply. See xxxxx for details."
in PDF I quoted, your point could have been valid.

Moreover,

> The numbering resources under the stewardship of LACNIC must be
> distributed among organizations legally constituted within its
> service region [COBERTURA] and mainly *serving networks and services
> operating in this region. External clients connected directly to main
> infrastructure located in the region are allowed.
> 
> *“Mainly” is understood to mean more than 50%.
requirement of such locality is, these days, seemingly
badly impractical and attempt to enforce it will likely
to be considered invalid.

For example, what if someone sells part of IP addresses assigned
from LACNIC to someone else performing business outside of
LACNIC region? If there is no restriction, it means locality
requirement is effectively invalidated.

						Masataka Ohta