The in-region usage should not be neither /22 or /24 but +50% of ARIN
resources assigned to the organization, in line with other RIRs.
It does not make sense to get resources from ARIN and use most of it in
other regions. If you have a bigger need in other region ask (or
transfer) IPs in the region within the respective RIR.
IP space is organized in Regional Internet Registers for a reason, to be
used for the reality of that region, to develop the internet in the
region. It doesn't make sense to take resources from one region and use
completely in the other. Otherwise it is too easy and flexible to choose
the more flexible and cheap RIR but use resources in a different region.
Policies that are developed and apply to those IP space are developed
taking into consideration the reality of that region internet ecosystem.
Using a smaller amount of that IP space for auxiliary proposes is
accepts (an international link, a ARIN customer that also needs
connectivity somewhere else in another region, etc). But not majority of it.
I think people need to learn how to live with fewer IP addresses and
make the best usage of it.
If majority of that assigned IP space is required in another region,
then just transfer it.
Fernando Frediani
On 4/16/2026 4:45 PM, Mohibul Mahmud wrote:
Hello Gerry,
Thank you for starting this discussion.
I generally support the proposed change from a /22 to a /24 for the
in-region usage requirement.
The current threshold seems too high for smaller organizations that
may have legitimate operational needs extending outside the ARIN
region, but do not have enough in-region utilization to meet a /22.
Lowering the requirement to a /24 appears to better reflect the
reality that smaller operators can still have a real and valid
connection to the ARIN region.
At the same time, I think the community should carefully consider
safeguards against abuse. In particular, it would be helpful to
clarify whether the existing “real and substantial connection”
standard is enough on its own, or whether additional guidance is
needed for cases where out-of-region use significantly exceeds
in-region use.
Overall, I think this proposal is addressing a real scale problem for
smaller organizations, and I support moving the discussion forward.
Best regards,
Mohibul Mahmud
On Thu, Apr 16, 2026 at 1:26 PM Gerry E.. George
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hello PPML members,
As we head to the ARIN 57 Public Policy and Members Meetings, I am
seeking to initiate and encourage some discussion on the Draft
Policy ARIN-2025-3: Change Section 9 Out-of-Region Use Minimum
Criteria. This is in anticipation of getting some robust
discussion on PPML and also for engagement at the mic along during
the meeting.
ARIN-2025-3: Change Section 9 Out Of Region Use Minimum
Criteria
<https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2025_3/>
*The Problem:*Current ARIN policy allows IPv4 addresses to be used
outside the ARIN service region if the organization is using an
IPv4 /22 (or equivalent aggregate) within the ARIN service region.
This draft policy suggests the /22 requirement harms smaller
organizations that have less than a /22 in region but do require
some out of region use.
*What It Does:*This draft policy reduces the in-region usage
requirement from /22 to a /24.
*The Impact:*This draft policy would allow usage of ARIN issued
space outside of the ARIN region as long as the organization is
using at least a /24 within the ARIN region.
In Summary: Updates Section 9 rules on using ARIN resources
outside region.
*Considerations*:
- How much of an issue could this be? Does it matter to the
community?
- Should there be a requirement for the OOR use be not
more/greater than the in-ARIN region use?
- Can this unfavorably impact companies having more growth OOR,
and drive them to other RIRs and away from ARIN in such instances?
- Is there a probability for potential abuse via the Waitlist, and
if so, should there be consideration for limitations to the
designated region use for 4.1.8. requests?
- Is the "real and substantial connection" requirement in Section
9 be sufficient to prohibit or reduce the potential for abuse?
Here are some potential discussion questions:
* What problem is this solving—abuse, ambiguity, or scale?
* Does tightening rules harm global operators?
* How should ARIN balance regional stewardship vs. global
Internet reality?
* Are there measurable enforcement mechanisms?
Looking forward to some robust discourse and to the presentation
and engagement next week at ARIN-57.
*Gerry E. George*
ICT Consultant and Business Solutions Architect;
*Digi/Solv/, Inc.* [P.O. Box 1677, Castries, Saint Lucia]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Mobile*: (758) 728-4858 /* Int'l Office*: (347) 450-3444/ Skype:
DigiSolv
*Email*: [email protected] / *LinkedIn*:
/https://www.linkedin.com/in/gerrygeorge//
/*Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Thank you.*/
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please [email protected] if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
