On Wed, 25 Sep 2013, Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Sep 25, 2013, at 3:27 PM, John Santos <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wed, 25 Sep 2013, William Herrin wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:59 AM, ARIN <[email protected]> wrote: > > [...]
[...] > > > network with 30% ARIN, 70% RIPE should be getting its resources from RIPE, > > Which would fail the plurality test. > > > 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, > > Which would pass the plurality test. > Yes, I don't have a problem with the word "plurality", Bill apparently does... > > 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. > > In reality, I think that particular boundary condition is an unlikely corner > case. > Where is the other 42% of that network, by the way? > As per my example (2), with no more than 25% in any other region. > As I said above, the numbers do not tend to move as quickly as you claim. > Names tend to be quite dynamic. Numbers tend to be fairly stable. If they > were not, BGP would have a much higher (and unsustainable) level of churn. > Most of my addresses (in my tiny little Class C) have moved less than 20 feet in the last 20 years, all are still in the same building :-) This is mostly of academic interest to me as I try to envision the future of the Internet. But also my company is trying to get its foot in the door in IP-based telephony, so Internet addressing and routing policies are of enormous interest to my customers (big telcos), and I need to understand their issues. Is the general consensus that a mobile device would more likely re-number itself as it moves around, rather than transporting its address with it? Even in the glorious (mythical?) future of identity/location separation? If so, then address location (or subnet location, since that is probably what would really be measured) would be much less dynamic and so less problematic than I envisioned. > > I think right now, an organization can basically deal with the registry it > > finds most convenient, whether for geography, language, culture or > > whatever. The proposal doesn't seem to be about registry shopping (my > > No, actually, most of the other RIRs are much stricter about out-of-region > use of address space than ARIN. Okay, didn't know this. [...] > > Owen > > > -- John Santos Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. 781-861-0670 ext 539 _______________________________________________ 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.
