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
