I could be on board with such changes. Specifically making the size much smaller (I think /22 would be reasonable) and particularly the limit on untested transfers. (1 per year maybe?) As Bill points out, we can always modify it in the future. It would be fairly trivial and straightforward to change /22 to something different, while keeping the other text in place.
thanks, -Randy ----- On Dec 24, 2014, at 12:24 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: > On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 1:00 AM, John Santos <j...@egh.com> wrote: >> Oppose 2014-14 >> >> 1) /16 is not "small" > > This is the main problem I have with 2014-14. Start with /24's or > maybe /22's and keep track of what happens to them. Then use the > knowledge gained to formulate a better policy when expanding the > process to larger blocks. > > I think it also needs a limit on the number of untested transfers in > which an organization can participate in a given time period. > > The text itself needs some cleanup to deal with the more obvious > unintended consequences, but the /16 boundary is what kills it for me. > > > On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Seth Mattinen <se...@rollernet.us> wrote: >> Then make it /18 to align with the fee schedule definition of "small". > > I ran a regional ISP on two /18's. You're not getting the concept of "small." > > Regards, > Bill Herrin _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
