Spam Auditor
Are you FOR or AGAINST the proposal in generaland does your 'Hear,
Here' include David's support for option #3?
Thanks,
bd
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 7:54 PM, Spam Auditor wrote:
> On 14-03-05 01:17 PM, David Huberman wrote:
>
>> As the author of this proposal, and having encoun
On 14-03-05 01:17 PM, David Huberman wrote:
As the author of this proposal, and having encountered the real-world
consequences of existing 8.4 anti-flip language, I support #3 as the
cleanest, simplest approach that best promotes Whois accuracy.
ARIN is a registry, not a regulator. Let's write
As the author of this proposal, and having encountered the real-world
consequences of existing 8.4 anti-flip language, I support #3 as the cleanest,
simplest approach that best promotes Whois accuracy.
ARIN is a registry, not a regulator. Let's write policy that promotes accuracy
in Whois, p
Why would someone buy a block in ARIN and resell it into APNIC, if the
original seller could've just sold their block to the APNIC buyer? I don't
see the arbitrage opportunity here, except with regards to the
soon-to-be-exhausted free pool.
-Scott
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Owen DeLong wr
I still have concerns in spite of said rejoinder. The rejoinder doesn't address
the ability to use this as a way to flip less expensive addresses into higher
profits by transferring out of region. All it does is protect a free pool which
likely won't exist by the time this becomes policy anyway.
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Andrew Dul wrote:
> On 3/5/2014 9:11 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>> You get AC airline status upgrade karma points if you can tell me that this
>> is meaningless then.
>>
>> From immediate need text :
>>
>> "These cases are exceptional."
>
> I'd agree the immediate
Jeffrey's comment below is an example of real life that frequently is ignored
in existing ARIN policies, as signing contracts with Internet providers and
even construction of data centers or smaller spaces take lots of money - and it
is difficult to be absolutely certain that an allocation from
> Jeffrey Lyon wrote :
> It is easy to obtain small allocations from ARIN (for now) but quite
> difficult to find contiguous space in the much shorter prefixes.
> These are the ones that would have market value.
You'll have to adapt, the million prefixes routing table is coming. Not
everyone is un
On 3/5/2014 9:11 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> You get AC airline status upgrade karma points if you can tell me that this
> is meaningless then.
>
> From immediate need text :
>
> "These cases are exceptional."
I'd agree the immediate need text is old and probably doesn't make as
much sense as i
You get AC airline status upgrade karma points if you can tell me that this is
meaningless then.
>From immediate need text :
"These cases are exceptional."
That doesn't sound easier. And is not current "undocumented" practice.
And end users are still excluded.
Abandon. Thanks.
Best,
Mar
On 3/5/2014 4:55 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 3:13 PM, ARIN wrote:
>
>
> [ clip ]
>
>
>
>> Add the following statement to section 4.5.4.
>>
>> Upon verification that the organization has demonstrated need at its new
>> discrete network site, the new networks shall be allocat
On Feb. 21 I sent the message (far below) to PPML asking the community to
support one of 3 alternatives or propose new language which makes one or
the other better, or a completely new wording which they believe
accomplishes the goal of producing policy language that is needed,
technically sound an
Thanks to Jeffrey and Martin for their feedback on 2013-8, Does anyone else
have feedback on this proposal?
Thanks!
Cathy
___
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 9:01 AM, CJ Aronson wrote:
> Martin..
>
> My fellow AC members who were at the meeting handled the discussion well and
> I didn't feel the need to speak on the subject. Mostly I listen to the
> community and that is what I did during the PPC. That is not shocking :-)
If y
Martin..
My fellow AC members who were at the meeting handled the discussion well
and I didn't feel the need to speak on the subject. Mostly I listen to the
community and that is what I did during the PPC. That is not shocking :-)
Further.. this does change nothing but it also documents current
Do explain. So a network operator should enter into a bandwidth
contract anticipating that it might get addresses from ARIN and if it
doesnt or doesn't get an adequate amount to fully utilize their
capacity they should eat that cost or loss so that it's "good for
ARIN"?
Not sure how that's good fo
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 8:17 AM, CJ Aronson wrote:
[ clip ]
>> You must not have been at the aforementioned consultation.
>>
> First of all I was online listening to the PPC. Second I didn't write the
You were registered:
http://bit.ly/1dqQhdF
But you didn't say a word during the entire disc
Cathy,
In my own recent experience, Black Lotus obtained a /22 under 4.5 for
a new location in Ashburn. The circuits were all purchased and BGP
established using /30's provided by the carrier. No announcements were
made until after this was done and ARIN space was requested.
Thanks, Jeff
On Wed,
Okay thanks for the feedback. Can you tell me.. how should the ISP set up
the live connection without address space for it? Should they have to use
some other block and then readdress it when they get the allocation from
ARIN? What if the ISP doesn't have a block to use temporarily?
This requi
Cathy,
I actually find it reasonable that the live connectivity be the
prerequisite for requesting space under 4.5.
Thanks, Jeff
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 10:42 PM, CJ Aronson wrote:
> Jeffrey,
>
> The text was changed from "Upon verification that the organization has
> already obtained connectivi
Jeffrey,
The text was changed from "Upon verification that the organization has
already obtained connectivity at its new discrete network site" because
folks felt that this meant the connection had to be up and running, not
just under contract. I believe there is more justification required tha
Michel,
>From your explanation, we do not disagree at all :). It is easy to
obtain small allocations from ARIN (for now) but quite difficult to
find contiguous space in the much shorter prefixes. These are the ones
that would have market value. I've requested several /21's and /22's
from ARIN. Thi
Martin,
See below
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 12:55 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 3:13 PM, ARIN wrote:
>
>
> [ clip ]
>
>
> >
> > "Subsequent Allocations for Additional Discrete Network Sites This policy
> > enables fair and impartial number resource administration by documen
I am opposed to the rewording as the new discrete site is in itself
demonstration of need. There is a technical requirement to provide at
least a /24 of space at any discrete site.
Thanks, Jeff
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 6:16 PM, CJ Aronson wrote:
> Does anyone else have comments about this proposal
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 3:13 PM, ARIN wrote:
[ clip ]
>
> "Subsequent Allocations for Additional Discrete Network Sites This policy
> enables fair and impartial number resource administration by documenting the
> current practice regarding allocations for additional discrete network
> sites. Th
I support the new wording. I consider it a change which is clerical in nature
and believe that the proposal is ready for advancement. I believe the community
has demonstrated consensus for the draft. However, since it has not seen a PPM,
but only the NANOG PPC, I do support bringing it to the wi
Does anyone else have comments about this proposal? The text has been
changed slightly based on feedback from the PPC at NANOG. The change was
from
Upon verification that the organization has already obtained
connectivity at its new discrete network site
to
Upon verification that the organiza
27 matches
Mail list logo
