Re: Digital Element, Neustar (Transunion) & ipinsight.io)

[Jon Lewis via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>]

I did mention the policy had since changed, and that [with IPv4 runout] it 
was largely moot at this point.  But, the last time I started the process 
of requesting an additional allocation, we got bit by the old policy 
(which was, IIRC, not explicitly stated anywhere in the NRPM) as $work was 
a CDN with global footprint and had infrastructure in regions served by 
ARIN, RIPE, APNIC, and Registro.br/NIC.br, and had used ARIN IPs all 
around the world.

On Tue, 26 Aug 2025, John Sweeting wrote:

>       ARIN’s current Out of Region policy can be found in Section 9 of the ARIN Number Resource Policy Manual, see
>       https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/#9-out-of-region-use
>
>       From: Jon Lewis via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>
>       Date: August 25, 2025 at 11:36:59 AM EDT
>       To: David Conrad via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>
>       Cc: Jon Lewis <jlewis () lewis org>
>       Subject: Re: Digital Element, Neustar (Transunion) & ipinsight.io
>       Reply-To: North American Network Operators Group <nanog () lists nanog org>
>
>       On Sat, 23 Aug 2025, David Conrad via NANOG wrote:
>
>
>             The problem is the assumed binding of <IP address, geographic address> in the “northern hemisphere” or 
> wherever. This has never been guaranteed, has
>             always been questionable, and, historically, was actively discouraged, at least by the RIRs (“the Internet 
> does not use geopolitical boundaries for
>             address allocation”, handwaving away the RIR geographical monopolies).
>
>
>       Huh?  It wasn't that many years ago, ARIN considered "out of region" utilized IP space to not qualify as 
> "utilized" for purposes of qualifying for additional
>       allocations by showing your existing allocations were sufficiently utilized.
>
>       Though that issue is relatively moot at this point, that policy did eventually change.
>
>
>             The problem, as I think you pointed out earlier, is that various parties, for good or ill, need there to be an 
> <IP,geo> binding, even if it doesn’t
>             really exist, so using what information they have, they make it up as they go along.  Sometimes (usually) 
> it works. Sometimes, it doesn’t. The crux
>             is that, when it doesn’t, the mechanisms to fix the binding, such as they are, sucks
>
>
>       This varies quite a bit from one IP Geo provider to the next.  Some are pretty good (have web pages where you can 
> do test queries against their data, will
>       accept your geofeed data if you tell them where to get it, etc.).  Others (like Digital Element) seem to be 
> entirely opaque and obtuse.
>
>
>       ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>       Jon Lewis, MCP :)              |  I route
>       Blue Stream Fiber, Sr. Neteng  |  therefore you are
>       _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
>       _______________________________________________
>       NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog 
> org/message/2ELNADG42WNLAMMDHPXV44KYHYI2NMA6/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Jon Lewis, MCP :)              |  I route
 Blue Stream Fiber, Sr. Neteng  |  therefore you are
_________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list 
https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/SZWKYIMQROZYHXDUTVNS4IMUINBLPBQ7/