Dear Community Members,
The shepherds for the Draft Policy 2017-12: Require POC Validation Upon
Reassignment, are making two changes to its text.
First, the problem statement is being expanded a bit to explain how POCs for
reassigned blocks can be assigned without the knowledge of the individua
I support the proposal as written.
To Jason’s question: My opinion is it has limited usefulness today—I certainly
don’t have a /19 sitting idle to assign to anyone. I prefer the proposal as
written, however, I would not oppose making the check optional.
-Andy Hadenfeldt
From: ARIN-PPML [mailto
The point of this provision was to ensure an ISP didn't re-allocate (or
reassign)
a large block of IPs to a down stream customer, and then find when they
tried
to get additional IP space that the large re-allocations (reassignment) was
considered
underutilized and prevents them for getting addition
Hi John,
I support this.
I am all for streamlining the NRPM by removing artifacts from the free pool era.
Regards,
Mike
From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of John Springer
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 2:07 PM
To: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: [arin-ppml] A
This draft policy seems straightforward and non-controversial. IMO, it is
technically sound and promotes fair and impartial number policy. It has had
support in the community.
It is my intention to move to advance it to Recommended Draft Policy status
at our next teleconference.
Now would be a go
I still could use more input on this Draft Policy. If you are not one of
the five people who has already responded then, please consider taking the
time to answer the questions below.
Thank you.
On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 3:18 PM, David Farmer wrote:
> There seems to be a bit of controversy on th
