US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2.
> The issue is that one may jump through many hoops to get a block
> from ARIN only to discover that some ISP has decided to not
> accept or honor routing information that would allow that block
> to be reached from smaller or larger parts of the net.
I wouldn't call it an "issue," I'd call it a "fact." It would be an
"issue" if there were some problem with this, or contention
> ARIN, by virtue of its granting authority, could, if it chose to
> do so, impose a condition upon all grantees that they avoid
> arbitrary or capricious treatment of other grantees.
Rhetorically, this is debatable... Yes, in a sense, if ARIN no longer
wished to be an authoritative registry, it could impose such a
condition, whereupon the authority you stipulate would no longer
In the real world, your statement is false. We need a registry, and
there's no point in setting one up if it's just going to invalidate
itself, so no, it couldn't impose any conditions of routability.
> Kim just sent a note indicating that, at least at the outset,
> ARIN would not be imposing such a condition.
No, she said, and I quote:
"ARIN is definitely not in a position to dictate routing policy to
anyone. Neither is RIPE, APNIC or InterNIC."
"ARIN will, as does the InterNIC, allocate globally unique
addresses. ARIN will not route or guarantee routability of
"ARIN will use the same allocation guidelines as
InterNIC/RIPE/APNIC are using."
I don't see anything either ambiguous or provisional about any of
those statements. Your implication that such a condition might be
imposed later would not seem to me to be correct.
Making Kim repeat the same already-clearly-stated policy statements
over and over is absolutely pointless, and a waste of everytone's
Why is this still being hashed over? It doesn't seem to me to be
bringing operational status any closer.
bill woodcock woody at zocalo.net woody at nowhere.loopback.edu user at host.domain.com