nanog mailing list archives
Re: Nice work Ron
From: Matthew Petach <mpetach () netflight com>
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2021 08:25:40 -0800
On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 1:11 AM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG < nanog () 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
Current thread:
- Re: Nice work Ron, (continued)
- Re: Nice work Ron Mark Andrews (Jan 22)
- Re: Nice work Ron Donald Eastlake (Jan 22)
- Re: Nice work Ron John Levine (Jan 22)
- Re: Nice work Ron Masataka Ohta (Jan 22)
- Re: Nice work Ron JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG (Jan 23)
- Re: Nice work Ron Masataka Ohta (Jan 24)
- Re: Nice work Ron JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG (Jan 24)
- Re: Nice work Ron Masataka Ohta (Jan 24)
- Re: Nice work Ron JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG (Jan 24)
- Re: Nice work Ron JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG (Jan 23)
- Re: Nice work Ron Matthew Petach (Jan 23)
- Re: Nice work Ron JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG (Jan 24)
- Re: Nice work Ron Masataka Ohta (Jan 24)
- Re: Nice work Ron JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG (Jan 24)
- Re: Nice work Ron J. Hellenthal via NANOG (Jan 24)
- Re: Nice work Ron Masataka Ohta (Jan 24)
- Re: Nice work Ron John Sage (Jan 24)
- Past policies versus present and future uses Matthew Petach (Jan 24)
- Re: Past policies versus present and future uses John Sage (Jan 24)
- Re: Past policies versus present and future uses JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG (Jan 24)
- Re: Past policies versus present and future uses Rob McEwen (Jan 25)