wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on building a nationwide network

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Mon Sep 19 07:02:20 UTC 2011

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.


More information about the NANOG mailing list