Orphaned meaning there is only a contiguous block of the Minimum size the
existing policy dictates. As I understand it there are a lot of /24 blocks
that are non-contiguous and therefore could only be allocated by ARIN as a /24
and not as a single larger block such as a /23 or a /22, etc.
I
On Sep 3, 2014, at 6:58 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
> Thanks for that info as that is helpful to me to better understand the real
> life effect of your position on this policy proposal.
>
> Would you reconsider your support of 2014-18 if it was changed to leave the
> current needs tests intact
Thanks for that info as that is helpful to me to better understand the real
life effect of your position on this policy proposal.
Would you reconsider your support of 2014-18 if it was changed to leave the
current needs tests intact on Minimum allocation requests , but with the
understanding
I don't see the flame. I asked Seth to make his comments reflect on service to
small organizations and he just did. I respect and appreciate his input and
yours.
Steven Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338
www.eclipse-networks.com
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.
On Sep 3, 2014, at 6:17 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
> Owen, you act like 2014-18 is a big deal. Stand back a moment and look at
> the forest instead of the trees. Nobody can corner the market on the new
> Minimum of a /24 once every year. It would take me 4 years just to get 1024
> addresses
On 14-09-03 06:32 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
On 9/3/14, 14:57, Steven Ryerse wrote:
Fair enough, but you have ignored my challenge to show me where it
says in ARINs Mission and founding documents that ARIN and this
Community is not supposed to also serve small organizations. That is
the foundation
On 9/3/14, 16:05, Derek Calanchini wrote:
I can justify 1024 Ip's very easily, but I can't justify 2048 or
certainly not 4096. Were I multi-homed, I could get the 1024 IP's...to
me this doesn't make a lot of sense. It's far less likely for a small
organization to be multi-homed, yet the policy
On 9/3/14, 18:17, Steven Ryerse wrote:
I would respectfully ask when considering 2014-18, everyone look at the actual
total effect of this proposed policy change. It is small and I get the sense
from some of the comments that folks don't realize that it would be small.
I disagree, thus stro
On 9/3/14, 14:57, Steven Ryerse wrote:
Fair enough, but you have ignored my challenge to show me where it says in
ARINs Mission and founding documents that ARIN and this Community is not
supposed to also serve small organizations. That is the foundation to this
discussion.
ARIN serves small
Owen, you act like 2014-18 is a big deal. Stand back a moment and look at the
forest instead of the trees. Nobody can corner the market on the new Minimum
of a /24 once every year. It would take me 4 years just to get 1024 addresses
and I'd have to pay for them so they are not free and of cou
On Sep 3, 2014, at 4:05 PM, Derek Calanchini wrote:
> Owen,
> I am such a company (small enough to not be able to get IP's) You have to
> realize, tier one providers ARE not giving out ip blocks anymore. The most
> you can get is a class C from very few providersmost will only give out
I believe his point and mine is that from our perspective, ARIN _DOES_ serve
small organizations.
I know that ARIN has certainly well served my small organization and many small
organizations for which I have managed, requested, and received resources.
So, the foundation to the discussion appea
Steven,
I didn't see a specific response to the specific question Owen asked.
"Is it your argument that anyone with a single host should be able to
obtain a /24 per year? If so, then we can agree to disagree and move on.
If not, where, between 1 and 63 do you think that bar should be set? You
cl
Owen,
I am such a company (small enough to not be able to get IP's) You
have to realize, tier one providers ARE not giving out ip blocks
anymore. The most you can get is a class C from very few
providersmost will only give out around 16 IP's.
It
>
> Problem Statement:
>
> New and small organizations are having a difficult time receiving resource
> allocations from ARIN because of the economic, administrative and time
> burdens of making their way through ARIN's needs testing process. For small
I haven't seen any evidence of this.
> alloc
What Seth said; oppose 2014-18
/RjL
On Wed, 3 Sep 2014, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>
> > On 7/23/14, 7:58, ARIN wrote:
> > > On 17 July 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted
> > > "ARIN-prop-210 Simplifying Minimum Allocations and Assignments" as a
> Draft Policy.
> > >
> > > Draft Policy ARI
Fair enough, but you have ignored my challenge to show me where it says in
ARINs Mission and founding documents that ARIN and this Community is not
supposed to also serve small organizations. That is the foundation to this
discussion.
Steven Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110
Owen, I think that over time the pendulum has swung so far from the days of Jon
Postel all the way over to the other side where it is deemed OK to shut
organizations out of resources. I'm trying to get the pendulum to swing a bit
back towards the center. Your argument boils down to it is irres
On 9/3/14, 12:46, Steven Ryerse wrote:
Why is it I keep seeing comments from various folks in this community
dismissing small organizations? I would ask you or anyone else to show me
where it says in ARINs Mission and founding documents that ARIN and this
Community is not supposed to also ser
Steven,
You are properly following the procedure just fine. Please don’t take my
comments personally, they were not intended as any form of personal slight.
This is the proper forum to effect policy change and I applaud your choosing to
participate in the process and bringing a proposal to try
On 28 August 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted "ARIN-prop-212
Transfer policy slow start and simplified needs verification" as a Draft
Policy.
Draft Policy ARIN-2014-20 is below and can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_20.html
You are encouraged to discuss the
On 28 August 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted "ARIN-prop-211
New MDN allocation based on past utilization" as a Draft Policy.
Draft Policy ARIN-2014-19 is below and can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_19.html
You are encouraged to discuss the merits and your
In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP), the ARIN
Advisory Council (AC) met on 28 August 2014.
The AC accepted the following Proposals as a Draft Policies:
ARIN-prop-211 New MDN allocation based on past utilization
ARIN-prop-212 Transfer policy slow start and simplified
Why is it I keep seeing comments from various folks in this community
dismissing small organizations? I would ask you or anyone else to show me
where it says in ARINs Mission and founding documents that ARIN and this
Community is not supposed to also serve small organizations? If you can't the
Owen, I appreciate the dialog but I think you are ignoring what goes on during
the allocation process for medium and larger organizations. You and I disagree
that the current policies are fair and I do not think I'm being irresponsible
to try and correct that! I've been told this is the proper
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> On 9/2/14, 12:57, Derek Calanchini wrote:
>>
>>
>> If you had to guess, how long would you think before I can order up a
>> /22 (4 class C's) from Arin? I am trying to decide if I need to fudge
>> the truth and order up a /21
>
>
>
> Not to
On 9/3/14, 12:03, Martin Hannigan wrote:
So we should strand fragments and fail to adapt to the changing world
and rely on policy relics (multi homing) to deny people access to
address space?
I don't know what this means.
~Seth
___
PPML
You are rece
Mike,
You misunderstood (or at least mischaracterized) my statement.
I did not say that needs testing doesn’t protect the free pool. Indeed, it is
one of the things that protects the free pool from being drained to the benefit
of organizations without need. However, what I said was that protect
I agree with Seth. Oppose ARIN-2014-18.
On Wed, 3 Sep 2014, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> On 7/23/14, 7:58, ARIN wrote:
> > On 17 July 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted "ARIN-prop-210
> > Simplifying Minimum Allocations and Assignments" as a Draft Policy.
> >
> > Draft Policy ARIN-2014-1
Hi Owen,
"Needs testing is not merely a vehicle to save the remaining free pool. If
that were true, then we would not have subjected the transfer policies to
needs testing."
Prior to the 12 month waiting period for transfers which was implemented in
2012, needs testing was *indeed* required
So Martin, let’s say the worst case that you bring up here happens. Would it
really be much of change from the current situation. Folks with legacy /24’s
sell them all the time, and I would point to the current experience in the RIPE
region where the world has not ended with the relaxation of t
Possibility, but there are at least 4 places (I think) in current policy that
the Minimum is used and I wanted to make this a simple addition to the policy
without having to rewrite several sections. This is the easiest way I could
come up with to accomplish that. I would be fine with fixing t
If I recall, you indicated a few months ago that you were now in favor of
taking the needs test off a /24 and that it was a big change in your thinking.
Ponies are nice but this is real business and meeting real business needs.
Steven Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlan
+1, I agree completely.
On 9/4/2014 午前 02:29, Seth Mattinen wrote:
On 7/23/14, 7:58, ARIN wrote:
On 17 July 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted "ARIN-prop-210
Simplifying Minimum Allocations and Assignments" as a Draft Policy.
Draft Policy ARIN-2014-18 is below and can be found at:
ht
On 7/23/14, 7:58, ARIN wrote:
On 17 July 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted "ARIN-prop-210
Simplifying Minimum Allocations and Assignments" as a Draft Policy.
Draft Policy ARIN-2014-18 is below and can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_18.html
You are encouraged
Steven, many of your statements are patently false.
First of all, the current allocation/assignment process is fair. Everyone is
subject to the same policies and it is quite easy for small organizations to
obtain IP space under the existing process. I have obtained legitimate
assignments for or
I agree of course we should allocate small blocks as well. It seems like a no
brainer that we wouldn't want to also allocate all those small /24 block
instead of letting ipv4 run out and nobody gets to use them.
Steven Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338
Blake, I would argue that according to your law of physics, this community
should not have lowered the minimum ipv4 allocation size - but they did. ARINs
mission is to allocate resources and it ISN'T to NOT allocate resources. The
Internet would not be what it is today if resources were not all
I've been on projects extensively the last month and a half and only now are
getting back to this proposal. Gary, I take your comment below to mean that you
are not in favor of making the allocation fair to small organizations. I think
there has been a consensus building that it is more difficul
On Sep 3, 2014, at 1:09 AM, Derek Calanchini wrote:
> John,
>
> That is GREAT NEWS! Given that, there will be no need to fudge...When I say
> fudge, I manage my IP's very tightly right now...I have been using the same 4
> class c's for almost 15 years. I could easily, legitimately justify a /
40 matches
Mail list logo
