Summary

  • Draft Policy ARIN-2026-5 would define out-of-region use as an ARIN resource used only outside the ARIN service region; simultaneous use of that resource inside ARIN and in another RIR region would sit outside the proposed definition.
  • The proposal that entered the process mentioned both resource use and advertisement from a location. The 22 September draft no longer says “advertisement from”, and ARIN’s public record does not explain the change.

A registry boundary is not a routing boundary

A network can announce one service address from several locations and let the routing system direct users to one of them. That is ordinary anycast architecture. But a registry has a different question: when does the location pattern of an ARIN-allocated resource count as “out of region” for number-resource policy?

ARIN is trying to answer that vocabulary question in Draft Policy 2026-5. It is a short text change with potentially wide interpretive reach, because Section 9 of the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM) uses the term to govern requests for additional resources. The draft is under discussion, not adopted policy. The current NRPM remains the operative text.

The distinction is more than geography. The region where a registry made an allocation, the places where a service operates, and the locations from which a route is announced can be related without being identical. Treating them as one fact can turn a narrow rule for justification into an unclear test for globally distributed networks.

What the proposed definition would include

ARIN’s current draft would add a definition to NRPM Section 2: out-of-region use means the sole use of ARIN-allocated resources in locations outside the ARIN service region. It then says the definition does not apply when a given ARIN resource is used both inside that region and in other RIR service regions. The problem statement names anycast and geographically diverse use as examples of the concern.

The word “sole” does important work. If one ARIN resource is used only in another RIR region, the draft would classify that pattern as out-of-region use. If the same resource is used inside ARIN and in another RIR region at the same time, the definition would not apply. The text is about a resource’s use across locations. It does not say that every anycast design receives a general exception, and it does not say that a route announcement alone changes the resource’s status.

That limit matters. RFC 4786 describes anycast as making a stable service address reachable from nodes in two or more discrete locations. The routing system chooses a node according to network topology and the request’s point of origin. This technical description explains why one service address can have a distributed footprint. It does not decide how ARIN should classify that footprint under its own policy.

One phrase disappeared between proposal and draft

The originator’s 2 August proposal defined out-of-region use as the sole use of ARIN resources “in, or advertisement from,” locations outside the region. Its accompanying exception also referred to both use and advertisement from locations inside ARIN in addition to other locations.

The current draft, dated 22 September, uses different language. It refers to use “in locations outside” ARIN’s region and excludes simultaneous use of a given resource inside ARIN and in other RIR regions. It no longer mentions advertisement as an independent part of the definition. The ARIN page records the proposal and the draft dates but offers no explanation of that edit.

This is not enough to infer intent. It could be a deliberate move from route announcements to service use, a simplification that assumes “use” includes announcements, or wording that the community still needs to clarify. Those readings have different consequences. A service could use a resource at a node in one place while routing policy advertises reachability from another network location. If the terms remain unstated, two operators could describe the same deployment differently, or ARIN staff could have to decide which evidence counts.

The policy discussion can resolve this without turning the definition into a routing manual. It can state whether “use” means where the service node operates, where the resource is assigned to a customer, where the route is originated, or some combination. It can also say whether an advertisement is evidence of use or a separate test. The current text does not settle those questions.

The threshold is a different decision

A second ARIN docket is changing alongside the definition debate, but it addresses another mechanism. Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2025-3 proposes reducing Section 9’s in-region IPv4 utilization threshold from a /22 to a /24. Its current text also says out-of-region justification could not be used to obtain IPv4 space from the Wait List, Micro-allocation Pool or 4.10 pool, while preserving the eligibility of organizations already on the Wait List when the change takes effect. ARIN records this item as a Recommended Draft Policy under discussion from 22 September 2026; it is not current policy.

The existing Section 9 has its own tests. The current NRPM permits ARIN-registered resources to be used outside its region, but using them outside can justify additional number resources only if an applicant proves a meaningful business connection to the ARIN region and uses the same type of resource there, with delegation lineage back to an ARIN allocation or assignment. Today the stated minimums are a /22 of IPv4, a /44 of IPv6 and one ASN present on regional peering sessions or routers.

The manual also says the same services and facilities cannot justify requests from another RIR, and ARIN decides how to weigh evidence of regional business activity.

ARIN-2026-5 would address what the term means. ARIN-2025-3 would alter one IPv4 threshold and add source-pool limits if adopted. Neither substitutes for the other. A definition does not itself grant resources, lower a threshold, approve a transfer or remove the substantial-connection test. Conversely, a new threshold cannot answer whether a resource used in multiple regions meets the definition.

A question of proof, not a claim about current operators

An operator with a service address announced from nodes in several RIR regions could use the proposed distinction as a starting point: identify the same ARIN-allocated resource, show where it is used, and document whether use occurs inside as well as outside ARIN’s region. But the public record does not identify a particular operator, an actual ARIN staff ruling, or an enforcement case involving this pattern. The scenario is a way to test the wording, not a report of a current dispute.

A useful definition should let an operator and the registry reach the same classification from the same evidence. That calls for explicit terms, not assumptions about how every network is built. The proposal-to-draft change gives the community a concrete question: is the intended boundary about where the resource is used, where it is advertised, or both? The answer should be visible in the policy text before downstream guidance turns one interpretation into routine administration.

Sources