> Can you provide any reason to maintain territorial exclusivity of
> assignments in this way?
No. I wasn't advocating any particular policy, really, just stating what
I understood current RIR practise to be (based on how I interpreted the
answers given to me by the RIR panel at RIPE61).
Ingrid has clarified that my understanding was incorrect, at least when
it comes to the RIPE NCC's practises.
I have to admit that I do still find it hard to accept that there are no
such territorial exclusivity, based on what has happened since APNIC hit
their last /8 policy. The high allocation rate seen in the APNIC region
didn't shift to other regions, it just vanished overnight. If all it
takes for an organisation to allocate addresses from out-of-region RIRs
to in-region end-users is to incorporate in that RIRs region, become a
LIR there, and peer at an IX there...those are trivial requirements to
meet, really, especially if you're desperate of IPv4 addresses.
For example, China Telecom had been allocating huge amounts of IPv4
addresses from APNIC up until the day they hit the last /8 policy. As
far as I can tell, China Telecom is incorporated in the UK, they are a
RIPE NCC member, and are peering on LINX. If that is all it takes to
allocated addresses from the RIPE NCC for use anywhere in the world, I
find it very hard to understand why China Telecom hasn't simply
continued allocating IPv4 addresses from the RIPE NCC in the same rate
as they did from from APNIC before they hit the last /8.
> What benefit to the internet or its users is accomplished?
My current personal opinion is that it would be best if all regions
exhausted more or less at the same time, but admittedly, I haven't given
this very much thought.