[arin-ppml] "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers (was: Re: And so it ends... )

John Curran jcurran at arin.net
Sun Feb 6 19:13:26 EST 2011

On Feb 6, 2011, at 6:46 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Jack Bates <jbates at brightok.net> wrote:
>> One of the stated goals of ARIN is to protect routing tables from bloat,
>> which is reflected in the minimum requirements to receive an allocation.
>> This doesn't, in practice, actually protect the tables, as there are many
>> who deaggregate their allocations, but that is beyond the control of ARIN.
> I think that network operators are better suited to manage this as
> part of a market activity than a "regulation" devised by ARIN.
> Historically, "regulation" of routing has been considered operational
> and ARIN policy in this area is generally ignored.

Martin is correct, in that ARIN's mission is number resource management not 
regulation of the routing of number resources. Historically, the address 
policies that have been developed by the community do consider the indirect
routing impact as only one of the many factors, but in general we have 
avoided setting any explicit routing requirements for number resources.

In the case of the specified transfer policy, the requirement to qualify to 
receive such just as an allocation under current policies doesn't create 
any "regulation" of the routing table, but it does propagate policies which
were designed with routing impact in mind.  To the extent that the community
feels that such considerations are unnecessary in policy in general or with 
respect to IPv4 at this point in time, that's a very important discussion 
to have.


John Curran
President and CEO

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list