[arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 254, Issue 2

[egh.johns at gmail.com]

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding here.  The intent of the policy 
proposals (and, IIUC, the implementation by ARIN of the exiting policies) is NOT 
to restrict geographically the usage of ARIN-provided IP addresses.  If you have 
ARIN-supplied IP addresses, you can use them where ever you want (within the 
restrictions of whatever pool they came from.*)

These policies pertain to justification for acquiring additional address space, 
over and above the space they already have.  The general, overarching principle 
is that users should acquire resources from whichever Internet Registry is 
responsible for the geographic area of the user's preponderance of use.

There is no need for ARIN to manage a database of where each and every block and 
address is used (blocks can and are subnetted so addresses in them can be used 
in more than one region.)  It is the responsibility of the holder, if and only 
when they are applying for additional space, to document their current usage and 
prove that they NEED additional space, and the user can't count too much 
out-of-region use to demonstrate that need.  If they are using most of their 
existing allocations, but too much of it is out-of-region, they should be 
acquiring additional allocations from the registry responsible for what ever 
region they need the resources in, not from ARIN.

These policy debates pertain to fiddling with the edge cases and justification 
requirements for acquiring additional resources, not for use of resources the 
user currently holds.

Excuse me, steward!  Could you please move my deck chair closer to the stern?  
That seems to be sinking more slowly.

[*] In addition to the general use pools, supplied from the waiting list, M&A, 
the IPv4 address market, etc., there are some special restricted pools, such as 
the pool for Essential Infrastructure and the pool for IP4 -> IP6 migration and 
co-existence.  The restrictions on these pools pertain almost entirely to usage, 
not geography.)




On 8/4/2026 1:25 AM, Quantum via ARIN-PPML wrote:
> Hi Eddie,
>
> On 2026/8/3 23:09, Eddie Stauble via ARIN-PPML wrote:
>> As an IPv4 broker, I run into several cases per year where a small company
>> is based in the US but has a branch office elsewhere in the world.  They
>> have a /24 for BGP here in the US, and want to do the same in the UK.  Under
>> existing policy, they cannot use their need in the UK for justification
>> since they have less than a /22 in region.  So they end up going to RIPE.
>> They would rather just keep it all in ARIN.  This proposal would allow them
>> to do that.
>
> What I am struggling to understand is why this is a problem only for users of 
> IPv4 brokers and not users of the IPv4 waiting list. If the same small company 
> wanted to use the ARIN waiting list instead of purchasing IPv4 space from you, 
> they would run into the exact same problem.
>
>> The waiting list should be used for those who have a need in the ARIN
>> region.
>
> It is not clear to me why this should be the case. In my opinion, if using 
> space out-of-region is something that ARIN permits, then it should be 
> permitted for all ARIN members. I don't believe ARIN membership should be 
> divided into two separate classes: those who use IPv4 brokers, and those who 
> use the waiting list, with the former allowed to get space for out-of-region 
> uses and the latter prohibited from doing so. I don't believe this is good for 
> the health of the ARIN community.
>
> Furthermore, if ARIN waiting list space is to be reserved for in-region use 
> exclusively, then section 8.3 transfers becomes a loophole. One could obtain 
> space under the ARIN waiting list, wait 60 months for the prohibition against 
> transfer under section 4.1.8 to expire, and then transfer the space under 
> section 8.3 to another ARIN member, who is suddenly allowed to use it 
> out-of-region. I don't think this creates the right incentives.
>
> Under the current proposal, ARIN would also be forced to track whether a 
> specific block is permitted to be used out-of-region and which ones aren't, 
> based on how the member received the space. If we wish to plug the 
> aforementioned section 8.3 loophole by allowing the out-of-region ban to carry 
> over after a transfer, ARIN would be forced to do even more bookkeeping. A 
> question for ARIN staff is whether this is something they can reasonably do, 
> and whether it makes sense for ARIN to police this.
>
> In my opinion, draft policy ARIN-2025-3 should either permit out-of-region use 
> with a single IPv4 /24 in region for everyone, or be abandoned outright. If 
> the concern is the waiting list being abused, then I suggest we institute some 
> other requirement that applies equally to all members, regardless of whether 
> they get space from section 4.1.8 or section 8.
>
> Best regards,
> Quantum
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (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 if you experience any issues.

-- 
John Santos
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.