[arin-ppml] Seeking Comments - Draft Policy ARIN-2025-3: Change Section 9 Out-of-Region Use Minimum Criteria

Thu Apr 16 22:24:26 EDT 2026

Fernando -

Appreciate your comment - I wanted to share some background on the 50% usage suggestion as it was considered when I was still the shepherd of this policy. Ultimately, we determined that there were too many side effects from making that change.

The two primary examples:

  1.
Small company has subsidiaries or offices in foreign countries but is based in the US. 4 offices (US, LA, EU, ME) and wants a /24 for each. Numerically they have more foreign offices than domestic. A 50% threshold would force them to purchase or own more space than they need. (Note this was also a primary rationale from the policy author for lowering the threshold to /22, as this scenario has happened in the real world.)
  2.
Large company operating in many RIR regions and has a reasonably large amount of space. However, under this policy if they wanted to add space (even by purchasing on the open market), if 50% of their space was in use outside of the ARIN region, they would be unable to add any space under any circumstances with ARIN.

In particular, example 2 is a significant change in policy application that would likely unintentionally impact existing mid-to-large customers, depending on the configuration of their operations.

Welcome your advocacy for that if you still feel it is warranted but thought it important to share the background that it was heard as a suggested change and was given due consideration.

Hope that helps -

Doug
--
Douglas J. Camin
Vice Chair, Advisory Council
doug at dougcamin.com
From: ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> on behalf of Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, April 16, 2026 at 8:51 PM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net <arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Seeking Comments - Draft Policy ARIN-2025-3: Change Section 9 Out-of-Region Use Minimum Criteria

The in-region usage should not be neither /22 or /24 but +50% of ARIN resources assigned to the organization, in line with other RIRs.

It does not make sense to get resources from ARIN and use most of it in other regions. If you have a bigger need in other region ask (or transfer) IPs in the region within the respective RIR.
IP space is organized in Regional Internet Registers for a reason, to be used for the reality of that region, to develop the internet in the region. It doesn't make sense to take resources from one region and use completely in the other. Otherwise it is too easy and flexible to choose the more flexible and cheap RIR but use resources in a different region.
Policies that are developed and apply to those IP space are developed taking into consideration the reality of that region internet ecosystem.

Using a smaller amount of that IP space for auxiliary proposes is accepts (an international link, a ARIN customer that also needs connectivity somewhere else in another region, etc). But not majority of it.

I think people need to learn how to live with fewer IP addresses and make the best usage of it.
If majority of that assigned IP space is required in another region, then just transfer it.

Fernando Frediani

On 4/16/2026 4:45 PM, Mohibul Mahmud wrote:

Hello Gerry,

Thank you for starting this discussion.

I generally support the proposed change from a /22 to a /24 for the in-region usage requirement.

The current threshold seems too high for smaller organizations that may have legitimate operational needs extending outside the ARIN region, but do not have enough in-region utilization to meet a /22. Lowering the requirement to a /24 appears to better reflect the reality that smaller operators can still have a real and valid connection to the ARIN region.

At the same time, I think the community should carefully consider safeguards against abuse. In particular, it would be helpful to clarify whether the existing “real and substantial connection” standard is enough on its own, or whether additional guidance is needed for cases where out-of-region use significantly exceeds in-region use.

Overall, I think this proposal is addressing a real scale problem for smaller organizations, and I support moving the discussion forward.

Best regards,
Mohibul Mahmud

On Thu, Apr 16, 2026 at 1:26 PM Gerry E.. George <ggeorge at digisolv.com<mailto:ggeorge at digisolv.com>> wrote:
Hello PPML members,

As we head to the ARIN 57 Public Policy and Members Meetings, I am seeking to initiate and encourage some discussion on the Draft Policy ARIN-2025-3: Change Section 9 Out-of-Region Use Minimum Criteria.  This is in anticipation of getting some robust discussion on PPML and also for engagement at the mic along during the meeting.
ARIN-2025-3: Change Section 9 Out Of Region Use Minimum Criteria<https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2025_3/>

The Problem: Current ARIN policy allows IPv4 addresses to be used outside the ARIN service region if the organization is using an IPv4 /22 (or equivalent aggregate) within the ARIN service region. This draft policy suggests the /22 requirement harms smaller organizations that have less than a /22 in region but do require some out of region use.

What It Does: This draft policy reduces the in-region usage requirement from /22 to a /24.

The Impact: This draft policy would allow usage of ARIN issued space outside of the ARIN region as long as the organization is using at least a /24 within the ARIN region.

In Summary: Updates Section 9 rules on using ARIN resources outside region.

Considerations:

- How much of an issue could this be?  Does it matter to the community?

- Should there be a requirement for the OOR use be not more/greater than the in-ARIN region use?

- Can this unfavorably impact companies having more growth OOR, and drive them to other RIRs and away from ARIN in such instances?

- Is there a probability for potential abuse via the Waitlist, and if so, should there be consideration for limitations to the designated region use for 4.1.8. requests?

- Is the "real and substantial connection" requirement in Section 9 be sufficient to prohibit or reduce the potential for abuse?

Here are some potential discussion questions:

  *   What problem is this solving—abuse, ambiguity, or scale?
  *   Does tightening rules harm global operators?
  *   How should ARIN balance regional stewardship vs. global Internet reality?
  *   Are there measurable enforcement mechanisms?

Looking forward to some robust discourse and to the presentation and engagement next week at ARIN-57.

Gerry E. George
ICT Consultant and Business Solutions Architect;
DigiSolv, Inc. [P.O. Box 1677, Castries, Saint Lucia]
________________________________
Mobile: (758) 728-4858 / Int'l Office: (347) 450-3444 / Skype: DigiSolv
Email: ggeorge at digisolv.com<mailto:ggeorge at digisolv.com>    /    LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/gerrygeorge/

Please consider the environment before printing this email. Thank you.
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net<mailto:ARIN-PPML at arin.net>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact info at arin.net<mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.

_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net<mailto:ARIN-PPML at arin.net>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact info at arin.net<mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20260417/194e951a/attachment-0001.htm>