[ARIN-Suggestions] One New ACSP Suggestion and Response

[ARIN]

One new suggestion has been received (2026.3) and a response from ARIN has been posted. This suggestion is now closed. You may find the new suggestion and latest response from ARIN in full below. 

Regards, 

American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)

------
ACSP Suggestion 2026.3: Update RPKI FAQ
https://www.arin.net/participate/community/acsp/suggestions/2026/2026-03/

Author: Chris Woodfield   
Submitted On: 13 January 2026

Description:

Currently the RPKI FAQ (https://www.arin.net/resources/manage/rpki/help/faq/) has confusing language under the question “Can I create a duplicate ROA?”

The current language in the example reads: “For example, an existing ROA containing a /16 prefix and a maxLength of a /24 will prevent the creation of another ROA with any prefix within that /16 block and the same Origin AS.”

This is, as tested, not to be the case, exactly. What is true is that given the above example, the creation of an ROA for a prefix that overlaps with the existing ROA - in this case, a prefix with a CIDR max between /16 and /24 - is not allowed. However, objects for prefixes smaller than /24 may be created, as they are not redundant to the existing object.

This behavior passes the “common sense” test, but the language in the FAQ is inconsistent with the actual rule set.

I suggest that the example be rewritten to clarify this. Example text:

—

Can I create a duplicate ROA?

No. ARIN’s auto-renew process deprecated the need for duplicate ROAs. Likewise, redundant ROAs - describing prefixes permitted by an existing ROA - may not be created.

For example, an existing ROA containing a /16 prefix and a maxLength of a /24 will prevent the creation of another ROA with any prefix covered by that ROA - having a subnet mask between /16 and /24 - and the same Origin AS. ROAs for prefixes within the /16 with masks between /25 and /32 may be created.

Value to Community: Current documentation is unclear on the definition of an overlapping ROA, which can lead to confusion as to whether a specific route that is part of a larger route with an ROA is allowed to be created. I propose the term “redundant” instead with a clear definition following.

Timeframe: Not specified

Status: Closed

ARIN Comment: 

Thank you for your suggestion, numbered 2026.3 upon confirmed receipt, asking that ARIN review and revise the answer to the question about creating duplicate ROAs in our RPKI FAQ. We appreciate your input, and we have updated the response in the FAQ to address the confusion you experienced.

This suggestion is now closed as completed. Thank you for participating in ARIN’s Consultation and Suggestion Process.

Regards,

American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)