<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">
On 15 Jul 2017, at 1:24 PM, William Herrin <<a href="mailto:bill@herrin.us" class="">bill@herrin.us</a>> wrote:<br class="">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 8:52 AM, John Curran <span dir="ltr" class="">
<<a href="mailto:jcurran@arin.net" target="_blank" class="">jcurran@arin.net</a>></span> wrote:<br class="">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">Such a separation doesn’t preclude the community from adopting policy which</div>
<div class="">references the present or future state of routing (note, for example, the use of</div>
<div class="">“multihoming” criteria in several portions of the NRPM), but folks are reminded</div>
<div class="">that in Internet number resource policy we should only be specifying how the </div>
<div class="">ARIN registry is to be administered, not how things are to be routed, since the </div>
<div class="">latter is up to each ISP. </div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Hi John,<br class="">
<br class="">
</div>
<div class="">In the interests of clarifying your remarks:<br class="">
<br class="">
</div>
<div class="">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.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br class="">
</div>
<div>Almost correct; i.e. ARIN administers the IP number registry, but does not (and should not) </div>
<div>administer Internet routing. It is acceptable for our policy to consider the state of Internet </div>
<div>routing (such as occurs with NRPM and multihoming today) but such should be as only that </div>
<div>which is necessary for proper administration of the registry. </div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>Not setting routing policy isn’t the same as not suggesting routing practices, and if the ARIN</div>
<div>community wishes to suggest that blocks which are routed should be SWIP’ed, then that is fine </div>
<div>but such should be advice, and nothing more. To do otherwise is to extend ARIN’s policy (which </div>
<div>the community must follow) into an area which is not properly within ARIN’s scope of control.</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>Thanks! </div>
<div>/John</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>John Curran</div>
<div>President and CEO</div>
<div>ARIN</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
</body>
</html>