In message ,
David Huberman wrote:
>It's hidden in the definition section up top:
>
>https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#two13
I do apologize for being so dense and/or so pedantic, but I'm still rather
entirely unclear on the precise meaning and appropriate interpretation of
the term "Reside
I dont think that ARIN has actually made any attempt to define
"Residential Customer", but the term seems to imply the person, not the
place. For example, If I live at my business, I think I could still be a
"Residential Customer". I know under the old days of landline telephone
that private
In message <0a860fd3-1673-0be0-d0dd-c1228cfce...@linuxmagic.com>,
Michael Peddemors wrote:
>Allow the community at large to 'register' complaints, but instead of
>having it sent to what for all intents and purposes can seem like a an
>opaque resolution process, have such complaints registered
In message <1194b151-cb40-2455-1963-58101dbd4...@linuxmagic.com>,
Michael Peddemors wrote:
>...
>There is a solution to that, SWIP to the ISP 'rwhois' server(s) which
>have the ability to provide 'rwhois' date down to the /32.
>...
>While the rules make it clear, that of course this isn't for
It's hidden in the definition section up top:
https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#two13
Sent from my iPhone
> On May 27, 2017, at 4:13 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette
> wrote:
>
>
> In message
> ,
> Scott Leibrand wrote:
>
>> On the topic of "what should the threshold be", I think requiring S
In message <1f134479-998d-30d1-2b59-5ec7eb887...@linuxmagic.com>,
Michael Peddemors wrote:
>Of course, we are supposed to 'report it to hostmaster', but after many
>such reports, and seeing no effect, it makes it hard to bother with
>reporting it..
Yes. Statistically speaking, it has appear
Cathy,
While this is a nice step, and indicates a move forward towards this..
(Wish I just had more time to contribute..)
It would be nice that somehow we find a way to 'assist' ARIN, in a
public manner, and have it adopted in policy in some form.
We have had several ppl who 'see' on a regula
On 17-05-26 06:47 PM, John Curran wrote:
Indeed.
As folks are probably aware, ARIN is quite willing to enforce SWIP
requirements in whatever manner the community deems appropriate,
we simply ask for clear direction in the form of community-developed
policy.
Thanks!
/John
John Curran
President
On 17-05-26 05:11 PM, hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote:
Therefore, while we discuss how many access providers are ignoring the
SWIP rules, do remember that the majority of ISP customers for IPv4
internet access are NOT subject to the SWIP rules, since they have 1 or
less dedicated IP addresses.
The
In message ,
Scott Leibrand wrote:
>On the topic of "what should the threshold be", I think requiring SWIPs for
>(non-residential) assignments is actually what we want here...
I'd like to take this opportunity to mention again that just the other
day I requested (here) at least -some- clarity o
On 17-05-26 04:10 PM, hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote:
The only real "Internet Police" stick is the records needed for
additional assignments must be there before you can get more. If in
fact more is never needed because of the size of the initial allocation,
there is zero incentive to SWIP the cus
Last time I brought up this topic, I was informed that until the Board
gets the mandate to work on enforcement, very little will be done on
this. However, it wasn't clear on how that can be brought about.
Of course, we are supposed to 'report it to hostmaster', but after many
such reports, an
On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 4:26 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette
wrote:
>
> In message pg3ze04...@mail.gmail.com>
> Scott Leibrand wrote:
>
> >> Am I missing something?
> >
> >No, this proposal isn't drafting a new rule, but rather relaxing an
> >existing one that mostly isn't being observed or enforced, s
Peter
The draft is still on the AC's docket and the shepherds are working on it.
I think it should be part of this discussion so I mentioned it so that
folks could take a look.
Thanks!
-Cathy
{Ô,Ô}
(( ))
◊ ◊
On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 5:34 PM, Peter Thimmesch wrote:
> Hello Cathy,
>
>
In message <3aa858a9-f0e8-440a-99ca-0140c3ab3...@arin.net>,
John Curran wrote:
>(I am in no manner advocating for such a policy change, simply making clear
>that the ongoing enforcement concerns are a matter of policy clarity rather
>than any imagined lack of ability to execute.)
Yes.
I, for
On 27 May 2017, at 3:53 AM, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>
> In message <37601b52-b8fb-4661-89ab-21052cf28...@arin.net>,
> John Curran wrote:
>
>> As folks are probably aware, ARIN is quite willing to enforce SWIP
>> requirements in whatever manner the community deems appropriate,
>> we simply
In message <37601b52-b8fb-4661-89ab-21052cf28...@arin.net>,
John Curran wrote:
>As folks are probably aware, ARIN is quite willing to enforce SWIP
>requirements in whatever manner the community deems appropriate,
>we simply ask for clear direction in the form of community-developed
>policy.
17 matches
Mail list logo
