APNIC Home APNIC Home
Info & FAQ |  Resource services |  Training |  Meetings |  Membership |  Documents |  Whois & Search |  Internet community

You're here:  Home  Mailing Lists sig-policy 


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [sig-policy] prop-046: IPv4 countdown policy proposal - returning to mailing list for development



At 10:44 a.m. 27/09/2007, Philip Smith wrote:


Sebastian Bellagamba said the following on 27/9/07 23:32:
> I am not sure if I follow well the idea of potential RIR shopping. Let's
> say we have GLOBALISP Inc, based in some (North) American big city, with
> a huge operation in the US and Europe; GLOBALISP also have a really
> small operation in, for example, Argentina. Do you really think that
> GLOBALISP Argentina could justify a request for a /8? If they do, how do
> you imagine that RIR staff would handle that justification and approve
> the subsequent allocation?

GLOBALISP could put their next global request in through their
Argentinian office. What is stopping them doing this at the moment? Does
LACNIC have a policy which says that LIRs who are members of other RIRs
cannot get address space apart from what is going to be used in the
country of operation?

LACNIC allocates addresses only to be used in the region.
We have (not very often) received request for addresses to be used in the region. Maybe people don't have a right idea about the size of allocations that we do in the region. The biggest allocation that we have done is an /11 and there are very few exceptions like that.

So, receiving an allocation to sastisfy the requirements of an ISP in a developed country, will not pass unnoticed.

But, anyway, I think that this is not a very important point, because in anycase the worst scenario about this kind of behavior is just equivalent to what we have today.

Raúl