Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[rpd] [Community-Discuss] Unaddressed queries by AFRINIC during AGMM

Owen DeLong owen at
Tue Jun 29 07:30:47 UTC 2021

> 3. (not so simple) An organization which has multiple headquarters in multiple countries around the world and which has a significant global network

> infrastructure.



> sounds as this interesting usecase

> requires a *global* policy [1]...i don't

> figure well a *regional* RIR fit to offer

> that kind of *global* service...i might be wrong

> though :-/ but still open to learn, fortunately.

> __

> [1]: < <>>

This is a misunderstanding of what a global policy is and how the global policy process works.

Global policies don’t govern how RIRs issue address space. Global policies govern how the IANA interacts with RIRs and how
resources are issued to RIRs from the global free pool (and/or how RIRs can return them to IANA). An example of a global
policy would be the last 5 /8s issued 1 to each RIR.

The reality is that the norm for many years has been for such companies to choose to work with one or more of the RIRs in
one or more of the regions where they have nexus in a manner that is convenient and functional for the company in question.

Lots of global companies get their addresses from a single RIR and distribute them all over the world. Other companies get
their addresses from more than one RIR and to varying extents keep them within each given RIRs service region. No RIR
has a policy absolutely prohibiting out of region use. The closest is the AFRINIC soft landing policy which only restricts
addresses issued after phase 2 began and even this strict limitation has a narrowly defined exception.

> You seem to think that such a company should be forced to deal with the RIR in each and every region in which it operates and get discontiguous

> network space to number its infrastructure in each applicable region.



> ...not responding for *our* brother, but imho there are many other possibilities; including proposing a global policy [1]. Why all the proponents of those changes in how the RIR system [2] works, should not simply start the existing process [3] in *transparently* submitting a global DPP?

Because a global policy is not the correct solution to this problem.

Nobody is trying to change how the RIR system works. The RIR system already allows addresses to be used globally. The only place where there is any question about this practice is here in AFRINIC and that mostly recently.

Due to existing litigation, I am limited in what I can say about this, however, I can repeat some already public facts:

Some years back, there were some Policy Experience Reports where Madhvi called into question the lack of restrictive language in AFRINIC policy in this area.
A policy proposal was floated in an attempt to create such a restrictive policy regarding out of region use. It met with opposition in the community and
was eventually (after more than a year and several meetings) withdrawn by the author.

Hopefully this allows you to understand why there is actually opposition to changing the way the RIR system works into adding territorial usage limitatoins
on addresses. Hopefully this also helps you understand the purpose and intent of global policies and why that is not actually the correct solution here.

Thanks for your comments,


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list