I support this proposal
David R Huberman
Microsoft Corporation
Senior IT/OPS Program Manager (GFS)
From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net on behalf of Owen
DeLong
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 10:58:58 AM
To: pol...@arin.net; ARIN PPML (p...@arin.net)
Subject: [arin-p
Total of 137 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri May 2 00:53:01 EDT 2014
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
5.84% |8 | 33.66% | 1011139 | der...@cnets.net
10.95% | 15 | 6.19% | 185829 | hanni...@gmail.c
Ok. Sounds like Mike has added a clearer restriction to his policy
proposal, so I'm satisfied with that.
Thanks,
Scott
On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 11:16 AM, John Curran wrote:
> On May 1, 2014, at 1:14 PM, Scott Leibrand
> wrote:
> >> We actually consider that paragraph regarding "repeated reques
On May 1, 2014, at 1:14 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote:
>> We actually consider that paragraph regarding "repeated requests" within the
>> context
>> of the policy section in which it was adopted, so 'requests' refers to
>> requests for ARIN-
>> issued resources (i.e. those that could lead to "Unmet
On behalf of myself, I support this proposal.
On behalf of my company, which finds itself in the position
of 8 large allocations above 93% and 1 small allocation below the 80% mark,
I support this proposal.
-Original Message-
From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@ari
In February 2012, I authored an ARIN policy proposal to eliminate any
needs-based justification on paid transfers. It was not adopted
obviously. Interestingly, the RIPE NCC adopted policy to remove
needs-based justification on paid transfers in February 2014. With the
benefit of two plus years f
> On May 1, 2014, at 4:51 AM, John Curran wrote:
>
>> On Apr 30, 2014, at 7:05 PM, Andrew Dul wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/30/2014 6:40 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote:
>>> ...
>>> It's hiding in 4.1.8:
>>>
>>> Repeated requests, in a manner that would circumvent 4.1.6, are not
>>> allowed: an organization
Hi John and list,
Since my intention was to allow a maximum of one needs-free transfer per
year, I have changed the proposal to better reflect that.
The proposed change will be a preface to “the recipient must demonstrate the
need for up to a 24 month supply of IP address resources...”
The pr
Support.
-Original Message-
From: Owen DeLong
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 2:19 AM
To: Jeffrey Lyon
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net List
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy discussion - Method of
calculatingutilization
I would support.
Owen
On Apr 30, 2014, at 7:49 AM, Jeffrey Lyon
wrote:
On Apr 30, 2014, at 7:05 PM, Andrew Dul wrote:
> On 4/30/2014 6:40 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote:
>> ...
>> It's hiding in 4.1.8:
>>
>> Repeated requests, in a manner that would circumvent 4.1.6, are not allowed:
>> an organization may only receive one allocation, assignment, or transfer
>> every
On Apr 30, 2014, at 11:33 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I am assuming that the change to correct the typo where I said /20 instead of
> /24 will still have the support of the community.
Damn, someone noticed it. I was going to let it lie and use it as an example
of why we want to move swiftly,
11 matches
Mail list logo
