[ppml] Policy Proposal 2004-3 point of order
marla_azinger at eli.net
Tue Apr 19 10:32:51 EDT 2005
I cant beat this dead horse any more. Its not a change. Its a clarification. This is why we clarified. I can not help anyone who in the past may have interpreted it wrong. This is why we made the clarification.
From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On Behalf Of
Michael.Dillon at radianz.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 7:26 AM
To: ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2004-3 point of order
> Question: Will ARIN provide globally unique addresses to an
> entity that has no intention of advertising those addresses out to
> the Internet or making those addresses reachable from the Internet.
> Old wording: I suggest most folks would interpret the wording as
> New wording: I suggest most would interpret the new wording as
> This sounds like a change in policy, not a clarification.
RFC 2050 says the following in section 3 a):
a) the organization has no intention of connecting to
the Internet-either now or in the future-but it still
requires a globally unique IP address. The organization
should consider using reserved addresses from RFC1918.
If it is determined this is not possible, they can be
issued unique (if not Internet routable) IP addresses.
Seems to me that if this were the wording of ARIN's policy
then the answer to your question would be "yes". Since ARIN's
policies are supposed to derive from RFC 2050, I really don't
see how the clarification of wording could be interpreted as
a change in policy.
Here is the chronology that you claim:
RFC 2050 - yes
Old Wording - no
New Wording - yes
But there is no record of ARIN ever introducing a policy that
went against RFC 2050 in this regard. Therefore, I believe that
you are simply confused and are misinterpreting the policy based
on the old wording. The new wording clears up this misunderstanding
to restate the policy from RFC 2050 that has always been the
More information about the ARIN-PPML