Hello,
I was wondering if there are any problems originating APNIC IP's in the ARIN region through transit providers? I have a Singapore-based prospect who would like to do business with us, but I'm not sure if I'll run into problems originating their IP's in the US - which were assigned to them from APNIC.
Best regards,
Brandon Wade
iCastCenter.com
As this Internet thing is a global thing, why would that be an issue?
(unless it is a spammer outfit of course 
Greets,
Jeroen
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.
Increasingly, governments are trying to take more control over packets
(there is ever the push for geographic maping mechanisms and so on)
and that may introduce potential legal problems in the future,
depending on the nation you're in and how paranoid they become.
So in short, do what you need to do. Just be aware of sub-optimal.
-Wayne
There should be no problems.
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.
There are multiple registries because it is easier to deal with
someone the speaks you language / is in the same approximate time
zone. The SG site has got addresses from APNIC. There is no
requirement to connect in the APNIC region. Lots of APNIC sites
connect to the rest of the world in the US.
The only problem I've ever run into is with IP geo-location providers using the country of origin of the original assignments to determine the locale of the IP. Major CDN providers and content owners then use these geo-location providers to provide geography specific content or for content localization.
A problem we saw at GC when using our ARIN space in APAC (which I realize is the inverse of your situation) is that our enterprise customers often got redirected to a cloud server in the United States rather than in their originating country, and this was in spite of their block being SWIP'd out to them in that country.
It's conceivable that you could have some sort of similar problem depending on the nature of your project and how you are planning to use their IP's.
Dave
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
Wayne,
This isn't entirely true...
As a general rule, most people have no objection so long as a given
organization that is getting space from RIRs conforms to one of the
following:
Get from the RIR where HQ is located.
Get from the RIR where addresses are deployed.
For example, an organization in the APNIC region that wanted to deploy
a router at a US XP and announce their space there is entirely valid.
An ISP headquartered in the AfriNIC region that expanded into Europe would
be able to use their Afrinic space for that expansion as well.
Owen