> On Sep 24, 2026, at 23:17, Quantum <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Owen, > > On 2026-09-24 21:36, Owen DeLong wrote: >> That opposition is specious unless the vast majority of your utilization. Is >> out of region. >> >> For example, let’s say you have a /21 from ARIN. You are using a /24 out of >> region and the other 7 /24s within the ARIN region. The 80+% utilization in >> region would still count towards qualifying, but the extra-regional >> utilization would not. > I think you are a victim of the confusing way this policy is written, with > the justification and summary completely different from the implementation > detail. I don't think you understand what the draft policy is actually > proposing after the latest amendment, because your example doesn't make sense > in context. >
No, I think you are the one misunderstanding the situation, but let’s see how this pans out… > Let's use something similar to your example. Let's say you have a /21 from > ARIN, used entirely with the ARIN region. Now, you want a new /24 from ARIN > to use out-of-region, because it's just a /24 and it doesn't make sense to > sign up with a whole new RIR just for one /24 when you have /21 with ARIN. > > Under the current version of the NRPM section 9: > > >> ARIN registered resources may be used outside the ARIN service region. Out >> of region use of ARIN registered resources are valid justification for >> additional number resources, provided that the applicant has a real and >> substantial connection with the ARIN region which applicant must prove (as >> described below) and is using the same type of resources (with a delegation >> lineage back to an ARIN allocation or assignment) within the ARIN service >> region as follows: >> >> IPv4: At least a /22 used in region >> IPv6: At least a /44 used in region >> ASN: At least one ASN present on one or more peering sessions and/or routers >> within the region. Yep… That’s saying that your existing usage out of region can be counted in your justification for more space. Yep, this policy would change that fact. However, since your existing /21 is entirely within the region in your proposed example, this is a distinction without a difference. > This is a valid justification for additional resources from ARIN since you > have a /21 in region, and ARIN will issue it to you via the waiting list > eventually. > Well, maybe, assuming that something comes available on the waiting list, perhaps. But that’s a side issue which I’ve already addressed. > However, let's examine the current text of the proposal: > > >> Modify the following text in Section 9: >> >> FROM: >> >> IPv4: At least a /22 used in region. >> >> TO: >> >> IPv4: At least a /24 used in region. > This is fine and will not affect this example at all. > > >> 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. > Right, well, I agree that it does close that loophole and I guess I’m fine with closing that loophole for those particular classes of address space. I suppose you are not. That’s a somewhat different argument from what I previously understood you to be saying when I responded. > This part, which is the newly added amendment, forbids you from getting any > space from ARIN at all for out-of-region use, since all valid mechanisms of > requesting space from ARIN are blocked, leaving only section 8 transfers as > valid. So if you want that extra /24 after having a /21 with ARIN, your only > options are: > > sign up with a different RIR; or > buy it from IPv4 brokers. or 3. Buy it from someone who has it without involving a broker or 4. Lease it from some IPv4 leasing company or 5. Transfer it through some other mechanism permitted under policy. Ironically, you could actually use a combination of option 1 and section 8 to get the space and then consolidate it into your ARIN account via an inter-RIR transfer, if you can qualify with an RIR that will issue you space through some mechanism. Again, perceiving RIRs as a continuing source of IPv4 addresses is folly to start with, so I’m really having a hard time getting fussed over policies that make that difficulty more visible. > Why are we doing this? Has there been any abuse in out-of-region IPv4 > requests? No one has ever shown any evidence of this to justify adding new > restrictions for IPv4 this late in the game. > Honestly, I don’t know. I also don’t much care. The ability to use out of region justification for acquisition of those classes of address space is, IMHO, an unintended loophole and closing it generally strikes me as a good thing. > This is precisely why I hate the way the amendment is packaged into this > policy. It tricks people into believing the policy does something completely > different, because the amendment doesn't align with what the policy is > purported to do. It causes confusion and muddies the debate to get such an > amendment snuck in under the radar. > Agree to disagree… I think closing those loopholes for those classes of address space is within what the policy is purported to do and I don’t have a problem with it. >> I support the policy as currently written. >> >> 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. > I agree that the right thing to do is moving to IPv6. I myself have > everything available dual-stack. The amendment is adding a pointless > restriction to the waiting list for no reason, perhaps in an attempt to > conserve the waiting list. If we are convinced that ARIN being a continuing > source of IPv4 addresses is ill-advised, why are we slapping new restrictions > on IPv4? > Personally, I think the waiting list is an increasingly pointless illusion. Unfortunately, I don’t have a better way to deal with any IPv4 addresses that trickle back to ARIN (other than possibly dumping them into one of the post-exhaust pools or auctioning them through a broker to reduce member fees, both of which I suspect would be unpopular). As to the latter, I think additional restrictions help make it more visible to some people that getting IPv4 addresses from ARIN is going to be increasingly difficult and less likely to succeed as time marches on. So I think you’ve just made one of the best arguments for this policy in your effort to oppose it. Owen
_______________________________________________ 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.
