Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

On 7/18/17 22:23, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> On Jul 17, 2017, at 16:36 , John Curran wrote: >>> What I would like to know is my gut feeling correct, which is that after >>> receiving an allocation of IPv6, nearly nobody ever returns to the well for >>> more, or at least not

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-7: Retire Obsolete Section 4 From the NRPM

If there is general community support for pruning back section 4 now that run-out has happened and section 8 contains the transfer requirements. I can pull out my previous drafts and revise and present those as alternatives to this specific draft text. Andrew On 7/17/2017 12:32 PM, Chris

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 4:24 PM Owen DeLong wrote: > > > On Jul 17, 2017, at 16:36 , John Curran wrote: > > > > Albert - > > > > We’ll research into these questions and report back shortly. > > > > Thanks! > > /John > > > >> On 17 Jul 2017, at 2:53 PM,

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6)

It looks to me like as far as using SWIP as a tool to track IPv6 assignments so that we know if they have reached the 75% mark to ask for more, this is not happening. As reported, NOONE has come back to ARIN at this time for more IPv6 space because they have exhausted their initital

[arin-ppml] IPv6 additional allocation and reassignment query (was: Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6)

On 17 Jul 2017, at 2:53 PM, hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote: > > Just a couple of questions regarding the carrots and the sticks for the ARIN > staff: > > Other than those who came back to change their initial /35 to a /32, how many > ARIN customers have come back for another allocation of IPv6