[156743] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Announcing APNIC IP's in ARIN region
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Conrad)
Tue Sep 25 11:30:35 2012
From: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
In-Reply-To: <20120925090534.GA7293@wakko.typo.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 08:29:32 -0700
To: Wayne E Bouchard <web@typo.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Sep 25, 2012, at 2:05 AM, Wayne E Bouchard <web@typo.org> wrote:
> It presents no technical problem but has always been considered
> politically inadvisable. I mean, there are multiple registries for a
> reason that goes beyond mere oranization and load sharing.
Always? Actually, no.
Back when the RIRs were first starting up, we pushed multinationals to =
obtain their addresses from the RIR that served the region in which =
their headquarters were located. The theory was that a single RIR would =
be better able to ensure addresses were used efficiently and it was more =
likely routing announcements could be limited. I personally got into a =
long argument with folks from Shell who wanted addresses from APNIC for =
their AP region networks and were displeased when I pushed them to =
RIPE-NCC ("Royal Dutch Shell", headquarters in The Hague). I believe =
Geert Jan DeGroot at RIPE-NCC (who tended to be a stickler for those =
sorts of things) got into similar arguments with folks from Mitsubishi =
in Europe.
Of course, the cynical might suggest that over time, such niceties as =
conserving address space and routing slots would, of course, take a =
lower priority to marking territory and RIR revenues, but who would be =
that cynical?
Regards,
-drc
