[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6
jcurran at arin.net
Sat Jul 15 18:27:52 EDT 2017
On 15 Jul 2017, at 1:24 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us<mailto:bill at herrin.us>> wrote:
On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 8:52 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net<mailto:jcurran at arin.net>> wrote:
Such a separation doesn’t preclude the community from adopting policy which
references the present or future state of routing (note, for example, the use of
“multihoming” criteria in several portions of the NRPM), but folks are reminded
that in Internet number resource policy we should only be specifying how the
ARIN registry is to be administered, not how things are to be routed, since the
latter is up to each ISP.
In the interests of clarifying your remarks:
ARIN does not set or even recommend routing policy. Participants in the ARIN policy process routinely consider industry routing practices, IETF recommendations, etc. when suggesting ARIN address management policy and ARIN routinely enacts such policy.
Almost correct; i.e. ARIN administers the IP number registry, but does not (and should not)
administer Internet routing. It is acceptable for our policy to consider the state of Internet
routing (such as occurs with NRPM and multihoming today) but such should be as only that
which is necessary for proper administration of the registry.
Not setting routing policy isn’t the same as not suggesting routing practices, and if the ARIN
community wishes to suggest that blocks which are routed should be SWIP’ed, then that is fine
but such should be advice, and nothing more. To do otherwise is to extend ARIN’s policy (which
the community must follow) into an area which is not properly within ARIN’s scope of control.
President and CEO
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML