Nice work Ron

Sun Jan 24 12:18:49 UTC 2021

I fully understand what you mean, however, I don’t think this is a problem even if all the RIRs ask for “%50 or even 100%” of usage in the region.

That will make your life more complex, as you will need to obtain addresses from each RIR. In the worst case, if all them ask for the same:

If you need 2.000 addresses in LACNIC, 4.000 in ARIN, 3.000 in RIPE, 5.000 in APNIC and 1.000 in AFRINIC (just an example). This makes in total a global need for your network of 15.000 addresses. You will sign 5 contracts, and you will get a block from each RIR, that is a bit higher than your actual needs in that region. This means that you have more than 50% of the usage in that region and in the case of LACNIC, it means that you need to ensure that 1.000 addresses are used there. Probably you will not actually need to get addresses from every RIR, for example, the 1.000 addresses that you need for AFRINIC, are the excess of addresses from LACNIC, etc.

So, you end up with 2-3 RIRs allocations, not 5. And the real situation is that 3 out of 5 RIRs communities, decided to be more relaxed on that requirement, so you don’t need actually more than 1 or may be 2 allocations. Of course, we are talking “in the past” because if we are referring to IPv4 addresses, you actually have a different problem trying to get them from the RIRs.

It is the decision of the community if they don’t like this complexity and they don’t care if you get all the addresses from LANIC (for whatever reason you have that preference, or the corporation is sitting them, etc.), and actually only 20% of the addresses are being used in the region (for example) and the community can change that at any time.

For that, you *don’t need to convince me*, you need to go to the LACNIC policy list and convince the community there.

My policy proposal *didn’t change that*. The word “majority” was already there. It was already being interpreted “literally” as “you need to operate more than the half of the IPs *that you get from LACNIC* in the LACNIC region”. I just added a footnote (as part of a mayor set of policy changes), to make sure that everybody is clearly reading the same with >50% instead of coming to the list or to the staff to ask for clarity every other day.

Note that you are interpreting the % from your “complete network”. LACNIC community that did the original policy and adopted the recent change, may have a more “regional” perspective, culture, or whatever you call it (may be because the lack of IPv4 addresses, the lack of business cases – in general – for organizations that are from that region but operate globally, etc., etc.).

As I already mention, note that there is a similar case in AFRINIC policy. They require that *all* the resources you get, are used in the region.

El 24/1/21 12:30, "Matthew Petach" <mpetach at netflight.com> escribió:

On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 1:11 AM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG <nanog at nanog.org> wrote:

When you sign a contract with a RIR (whatever RIR), is always 2 parties, so majority of resources operated in the region (so to have the complete context) clearly means that you are using in the region >50% of the provided IPs.

No.

If you operate a global backbone on six continents, 

and obtain a block of addresses to use for building 

that backbone, you can easily end up in a situation 

where there is no continent with >50% utilization of 

resources; it can easily end up with the space being

split 10%, 10%, 20%, 25%, 35%.  Every time I have 

gone to an RIR for resources, and have described the 

need, explaining that the largest percentage of the 

addresses will be used within the primary region 

has been sufficient.  No RIR has stated that a global 

backbone buildout can only be built in a region if > 50% 

of the addresses used on that backbone reside within 

their region.  Otherwise, you end up at a stalemate 

with no RIR able to allocate addresses for your backbone 

in good faith, because no region holds more than 50% of 

the planet's regions.

"Mainly" has been interpreted to be "the largest percentage"

every time I have requested space.

If RIRs start to put a >50% requirement in place, you're 

going to see global backbone providers put into the awkward 

position of having to lie about their buildout plans--so they're

going to consistently vote against language that explicitly says

">50%" just so that nobody is put into the position of having to

knowingly lie on an attestation.

I understand where you're coming from; but as someone who

has built global infrastructure in the past, I think it would be 

good to consider the view from the other side of the table,

and realize why the language is kept a bit more loose, to 

allow for the creation of infrastructure that spans multiple 

regions.

Thanks!

Matt

**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20210124/ed581350/attachment.html>