On Sep 18, 2011, at 6:51 PM, Charles N Wyble wrote:

> On 09/18/2011 08:25 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:
>> I understand that tunneling meets the letter of the ARIN policy, but I'll 
>> make the bold assumption that wasn't the spirit of the policy when it was 
>> written.  Maybe the policy needs to be amended to clarify that.
> 
> Well that would be a shame in my opinion. When one is boot strapping a
> network, it's very useful to have an ASN/PI space. Especially for v6. If
> one starts with a "real" upstream and a multihomed via tunnel, is that
> really so bad?
> 
> I don't think it is.
> 

As someone who has authored the occasional ARIN policy, I will say
that I believe ARIN policy is intentionally agnostic about underlying
physical and logical topology of your network beyond those aspects
defined in the policy.

I do not believe that there was any intention to preclude tunnels
and that if there had been, the policy authors and/or the community
would have been perfectly capable of adding language to express
that intent.

As such, no, I don't believe that the use of tunnels is outside of the
spirit of the policy as it is written.

Owen


Reply via email to