[arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-6: Returned IPv4 Addresses - Last Call

Martin Hannigan hannigan at gmail.com
Tue Apr 19 18:10:23 EDT 2011

On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 11:32, Rudolph Daniel <rudi.daniel at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I do not understand how 2011-6 contravenes ICP2.
> I also do not see that connection.

I'm interpreting Section 1 to define the boundaries of RIR's and that
their assignments of addresses are sticky per ICP2 in the interest of
reduced fragmentation and policy clarity. That removes any techincal
argument about address ownership supported by the ICANN registry

The hook that this policy proposes is a wildcard that could end in all
three of the scenarios below:

"Each region should be served by a single RIR, established under one
management and in one location. The establishment of multiple RIRs in
one region is likely to lead to:

    * fragmentation of address space allocated to the region;
    * difficulty for co-ordination and co-operation between the RIRs;
    * confusion for the community within the region."

Section 3 also seems to infer that regional policies are distinct.

"The new RIR needs to have and to clearly document defined procedures
for the development of resource management policies which may be
implemented regionally"



More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list