Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2025-3: Change Section 9 Out Of Region Use Minimum Criteria

Fri, 25 Sep 2026 13:11:30 -0700

Not correct. The out of region use can’t be used as justification, but your in region use still counts. 

So out of region usage is essentially counted as unutilized space. 

That’s the current amendment. That’s not me being confused. 

Owen


On Sep 25, 2026, at 04:56, Daryll Swer <[email protected]> wrote:


I'm in favour of IPv4 running out faster than my cup of red tea in the morning. It'll be more expensive for aftermarket purchase then, pushing further to offload as much traffic as possible onto IPv6.

I think at this point, trying to get everyone on IPv6 is about as good as trying to get everyone on DHCP instead of legacy BOOTP or static configuration.

--
Best Regards
Daryll Swer


On Fri, 25 Sept 2026 at 12:03, Quantum <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi,

On 2026-09-24 22:38, Daryll Swer wrote:
> Further, any belief that ARIN is likely to be a continuing source of IPv4 addresses is ill-advised at best. Move on to IPv6. It’s long overdue. 

+1

I still see way too much effort, energy, time and money spent on: IPv4. Instead of rolling out IPv6.

I agree with you, actually. Why is ARIN spending all this effort, energy, time, and money trying to add new restrictions to the IPv4 waiting list in this policy proposal? Recall the specific wording this policy is inserting:

Out-of-Region Usage Justification may not be used to receive IPv4 address space from the ARIN Waiting List (4.1.8), the Micro-allocation Pool (4.4), or the Dedicated IPv4 Block to Facilitate IPv6 Deployment (4.10).

Any organization already on the Waiting List at the time this policy is implemented will be exempted and shall remain eligible under the rules in effect at the time of its placement on the Waiting List.

Why is this change even necessary? Why are we slapping a restriction on IPv4 justifications this late in the game? Why are we rearranging the deck chairs on a sinking ship? This is but one of the reasons why I am opposed to the policy.

Of course we need v4, but come on: why aren't we spending as much time and effort, collectively, with 464xlat and MAP-T, instead?

You are asking the right questions about the IPv6 transition. You should know that this policy proposal makes it more difficult also.

Consider the case where you are happily using IPv6 from ARIN out-of-region and want to deploy 464XLAT or MAP-T to ensure you can access legacy IPv4 stuff, but need a bit of IPv4 space to do so.

According to ARIN-2025-8, ARIN already rejects out-of-region requests under 4.10. Even if ARIN doesn't, the section of this proposal I quoted will forbid section 4.10 from being used here. So your only option to get the IPv4 space for such would be to:

  1. Get it from the ARIN waiting list; or
  2. Buy it from an IPv4 broker.

The recommended draft policy ARIN-2025-3 will close off the first avenue, which makes it harder to do IPv6 transition.

So I ask again, why are we spending time actively making the situation worse? Why are people even proposing such restrictions when they could be thinking about the IPv6 transition? Therefore, I oppose this recommended policy as written.

Best regards,
Quantum

_______________________________________________
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.

Reply via email to