Summary

  • ARIN-2025-3 remains under discussion. It proposes lowering the in-region IPv4-use threshold from /22 to /24; it is not an adopted rule.
  • The threshold is an eligibility gate, not a stated cap. ARIN staff says neither the current text nor the draft sets a maximum for out-of-region IPv4 justified by meeting it.

A prefix length can look like a technical detail until it decides who may pass through a policy gate. ARIN-2025-3 proposes changing the in-region IPv4 use required to justify out-of-region use from at least a /22 to at least a /24. A /24 contains one quarter as many addresses as a /22. The change would therefore make the qualifying in-region footprint smaller, if the proposal advances and is adopted.

That last condition matters. ARIN lists the text as a Recommended Draft Policy, current version dated 20 August 2026, with status “Under Discussion.” Its policy history records the Advisory Council’s recommendation on 22 September. ARIN’s October preview placed it on the ARIN 58 discussion agenda. None of those steps makes it effective. The Advisory Council may advance a Recommended Draft to Last Call, return it for further drafting, or abandon it; Board adoption follows Last Call.

The proposal does not erase the rest of the test. An organization still has to demonstrate a real and substantial connection to the ARIN region and use the same type of resources in-region, with delegation lineage tracing to an ARIN allocation or assignment. The Number Resource Policy Manual says incorporation in the region, by itself, does not establish a meaningful business connection. The draft also preserves a /44 minimum for IPv6 and the existing ASN test.

It names three routes that this out-of-region justification cannot open: the IPv4 Waiting List, the micro-allocation pool, and the dedicated block for IPv6 deployment under Section 4.10. Organizations already on the Waiting List when implementation occurs would remain eligible under the rules in effect when they entered. Those exceptions describe access to particular pools; they do not convert the /24 into a general volume limit.

The distinction is visible in ARIN staff’s 11 September review. Staff says neither current Section 9 nor the draft sets a maximum amount of IPv4 that may be justified for use outside the region once the in-region threshold is met. It notes that one qualifying /24 might, in practice, support a request for substantially larger space deployed entirely outside the ARIN region. This is a review of the text and a risk to clarify—not evidence that such an allocation has happened, or a final Board interpretation.

That is the policy’s consequential design question. A threshold answers whether an applicant clears a condition. A cap answers how much can follow. Lowering the first does not silently create the second. If the intended effect is to admit organizations with a smaller operational footprint while retaining a meaningful connection and lineage test, the draft should make that choice legible. If participants also expect the in-region /24 to constrain the scale of external use, the present language—as described by staff—does not establish that result.

The useful community discussion is therefore not simply whether a /24 is easier to meet than a /22. It is whether the retained connection test can be applied consistently, whether the excluded pools are sufficiently clear, and whether the policy should state a separate relationship between in-region deployment and out-of-region volume. Precision helps both applicants and reviewers understand what evidence matters, without requiring a reader to infer a quota that the text does not contain.

The present record supports a narrow conclusion: ARIN is considering a smaller qualifying IPv4 threshold, with other tests and exceptions retained. It does not support saying the proposal passed, changed ARIN policy, or produced a particular allocation outcome. Until an adoption record exists, the threshold remains a question for the policy process—and the distinction between eligibility and scale remains the question to keep in view.

Sources: