On 15 Jul 2017, at 1:24 PM, William Herrin <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 8:52 AM, John Curran <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 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. Hi John, 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. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
_______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
