Total of 44 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Sep 19 00:53:03 EDT 2014
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
25.00% | 11 | 38.87% | 401544 | jschil...@google.com
11.36% |5 | 21.75% | 224699 | m...@iptradin
On 9/18/2014 3:21 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Sep 18, 2014, at 2:22 PM, Andrew Dul wrote:
>
>> On 2014-09-18 13:37, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> I object to section 4.10.1.4.
>>> An organization should not be locked out of available space simply
>>> because they happened to be unlucky in where they got
Dale,
Thanks for your input, would you otherwise support the policy if we
retained the existing /10 reservation for 4.10.2?
I would certainly like to hear from others on the list regarding the
pool sizes for the transition vs. austerity pools.
Thanks,
Andrew
On 9/18/2014 1:54 PM, Dale W. Card
Below is a first try at brining MDN into 2014-20
8.3.2.1.1 MDN Minimum Requirements
Organizations that have multiple discrete networks (MDNs) and do not
qualify under 8.3.2.1 may still qualify for a non-M&A transfer if the
organization can demonstrate 50% utilization on average, as measured u
On Sep 18, 2014, at 2:22 PM, Andrew Dul wrote:
> On 2014-09-18 13:37, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> I object to section 4.10.1.4.
>> An organization should not be locked out of available space simply
>> because they happened to be unlucky in where they got shoehorned
>> compared to other organizations.
>
>>> Address space received from IANA under the “Global Policy for Post
>>> Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA (NRPM 10.5)” by ARIN
>>> shall be allocated or assigned under this section.
>>> Allocations and assignments from this block must be justified by immediate
>>> IPv6 deploym
I object to changing the /10 to /11 as proposed in 2014-16: Section
4.10.2. I believe the rationale behind the /10 from 2008-5 still stand.
Dale
Thus spake Alexander, Daniel (daniel_alexan...@cable.comcast.com) on Thu, Sep
18, 2014 at 05:11:24AM +:
> Hello All,
>
> There has been an updat
On 2014-09-18 13:37, Owen DeLong wrote:
I object to section 4.10.1.4.
An organization should not be locked out of available space simply
because they happened to be unlucky in where they got shoehorned
compared to other organizations. If an organization has a /24 and
needs another /24, but the a
On 2014-09-18 09:37, Bill Owens wrote:
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 05:11:24AM +, Alexander, Daniel wrote:
Hello All,
There has been an update to the text of ARIN2014-16: Section 4.10
Austerity Policy Update. Based upon previous feedback and suggestions
there has been substantial changes to the
I object to section 4.10.1.4.
An organization should not be locked out of available space simply because they
happened to be unlucky in where they got shoehorned compared to other
organizations. If an organization has a /24 and needs another /24, but the
adjacent /24 is not available, they shou
David,
I appreciate your comments wrt if ARIN should accept a purely future
looking 2 year projected growth. I think that is at the heart of this
proposal.
My personal (ISP) experience is that ARIN allocations are always based on
past usage, and if your 3 month need is greater than 1/4 your usa
Hi Jason,
You wrote:
I think there are issues with the status quo.
How to deal with slow start
- can't assume the upstream can or will provide addresses
This is a tremendous problem, which your proposal solves, but it is also solved
with 2014-14 with more brevity.
How to reduce the burden o
Present transfer policy will effectively preclude new entrants from
obtaining any IPv4 address space via transfer (unless they can somehow
first get resources allocated from their upstream ISPs during this
time of increasing scarcity), so continued thinking and discussion
on solutions would indeed
On Sep 17, 2014, at 2:40 PM, David Huberman
wrote:
> Kevin's very cogent call-outs were an eye opener for me. TPIA has gotten the
> short-shrift from ARIN policy for a long time, and it's a very complex
> technical situation that needs careful thought. MDN is a well-practiced
> policy that
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 05:11:24AM +, Alexander, Daniel wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> There has been an update to the text of ARIN2014-16: Section 4.10
> Austerity Policy Update. Based upon previous feedback and suggestions
> there has been substantial changes to the original text. This new text is
I noticed I have not seen any further discussion on this proposed policy
change, I would like to emphasize how important it is to smaller companies such
as ours. Even thought our overall utilization is 90%+ we must get down to
lower than the last /24 before we can ask for addresses.
I will ad
16 matches
Mail list logo
