Total of 104 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Mar 28 00:53:02 EDT 2014
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
12.50% | 13 | 6.86% |96058 | jcur...@arin.net
7.69% |8 | 10.45% | 146369 | scottleibr...@gm
I have taken the direction to not submit a proposal since this particular
subject has been requested to go through the suggestion process by John Curran.
This will be reviewed and addressed by the BOT.
The number assigned to this: Suggestion ID 2014.7
Should anyone choose to follow how the BO
>> 11.7 Resource Allocation Guidelines
>>
>> The Numbering Resources requested come from the global Internet Resource
>> space, do not overlap previously assigned space,
_Previously_ assigned space, or _currently_ assigned space?
Like David, I’m struggling to understand what problem is being so
Thanks. This wasn't really a big secret or anything. I didn't see an
announcement that I recall. That would've been nice. Oh well.
We discussed it briefly here, we of course reserve the right to change
our mind, still not in support of the proposal. Neutral on the
research unless that becomes an i
I'm the primary shepherd for this Draft;
The author is Heather Schiller, and I'm only saying that because I'm
going to reference you to her comments at the mic at the last NANOG.
The research that prompted the proposal was presented at the last NANOG
in Atlanta and is at the following link;
And if it's in the registry it's in someones name which means THEY can
write the LOA. Even in the case of another advertising a prefix
registered to someone and on their behalf, think routerless location,
the registrant writes the LOA for the upstream to pass off to peers
where and if needed. I do
ARIN doesn't have the authority to write an LOA for space not explicitly
registered to an entity in Whois. Is this what happened?!?
Details would be nice if we're going to discuss 2014-12 in a meaningful way :)
David R Huberman
Microsoft Corporation
Senior IT/OPS Program Manager (GFS)
_
That's an operational problem. No one should ever accept nor should ARIN
ever write an LOA for anything except their own registered prefix.
Best,
Martin
On Thursday, March 27, 2014, Scott Leibrand wrote:
> The author or shepherds can provide more detail, but this was submitted in
> response
Hello John,
Ah ok - that explains why I didn't recall seeing a discussion, thank you.
Will the policy author please reveal themselves and talk to us about
what's going on? Unless my reading comprehension is poor, I'm
not understanding what's really going on here.
Thanks!
/david
David R Huberma
The author or shepherds can provide more detail, but this was submitted in
response to a recent presentation on research that involved announcing a
covering aggregate for a significant fraction of the entire IP space with ARIN
providing an LOA that allowed it. Per statements at the mic, the auth
Yes, I would like to see a new draft in this area, just from personal
experience..
We currently use three Class C's from upstream providers, about 70%
used, and we would like a /22 simply for the flexibility to move between
providers, but the rules want us to be multi-homed for that.
And we
I have been having a discussion with a member of the community about the
initial allocations to ISPs, NRPM section 4.2. I thought quite a bit about
this last night and I would love your input. It seems to me that we might
want to revamp this in light of IPv4 run out. Does it make sense when the
Hi David,
Draft Policies only get posted to PPML once they are moved forward in the
process to that state. That being said it was just posted as a DP this
week, Tuesday. Discussions need to begin and it will also be presented and
discussed at the PPM in Chicago. This is in accordance with the curr
On Mar 27, 2014, at 3:37 PM, David Huberman
wrote:
> I think the true problem may a combination of:
> - the reality of how network operators are participating
> in ARIN; and
> - the brand new risks which the ARIN corporate governance
> model now presents to the network operator community in
>
Hello,
Thank you again, John, for a very clear and concise reply.
I have changed the subject line, so as to fork this theme away
from the very specific term limits discussion, and to pivot it to
what I believe may (again: MAY) be the true problem that exists.
I sincerely apologize in advance for
15 matches
Mail list logo
