I also have no problem with the Clarification.
I also note that in 2017-5, the registration requirements for IPv6 was
changed to more than a /48. Thus, unless someone is handing out BYOD or
public use IPv6 address blocks larger than this, or with unique routing
applied, that act should never
This also works for me.
Owen
> On Aug 14, 2018, at 09:20 , David Farmer wrote:
>
> Yes, moving the sentence to the end of the section is probably even a better
> solution.
>
> However, looking at the sentence a little more closely. Using reassignment,
> or assignment for that matter, twice
> On Aug 14, 2018, at 06:43 , David Farmer wrote:
>
> Because of recent changes, editorial if I remember correctly, section 2.5 now
> reads as;
>
> 2.5. Allocation, Assignment, Reallocation, Reassignment
>
> Allocation - Address space delegated to an organization directly by ARIN for
> the
+ 1 Dave’s wording below. To me this seems more clear than previous iterations
that have been discussed, incidental doesn’t imply a time limit on things like
temporary does. I agree that moving the sentence to the end is better also.
--
Brian E Jones
bjo...@vt.edu
> On Aug 14, 2018, at 12:20 P
Yes, moving the sentence to the end of the section is probably even a
better solution.
However, looking at the sentence a little more closely. Using reassignment,
or assignment for that matter, twice in the same sentence sounds a little
circular or possibly self-contradictory to me. Also, incident
Thank you for breaking out the definitions. I support your minor change and
agree that the sentence, “A temporary assignment of address space provided to
third parties shall not be considered a reassignment or a violation of the
exclusive use criterion.” should be added to both Assignment and
I very much support fixing the problem that ARIN Staff has brought to our
attention. I don't have a strong opinion as to if this is the preferred
solution to the problem. However, there did seem to be a slight
preference by the community for this solution over ARIN-2017-9 at the Maimi
meeting.
The
Unless I’m missing anything (in other regions we have “sub-assignment”), I
think it works for me.
May be a way to shorten it is to use the proposed sentence, but after all the
definitions:
2.5. Allocation, Assignment, Reallocation, Reassignment
Allocation - Address space delegated
I stand corrected, but you must acknowledge the nearly 200 successful ASN
transfers intra-regionally in APNIC as evidence that the need to transfer ASNs
exists. We don’t need to posit hypotheticals for that, just look at the log of
ASN transfers. Now we are just considering the source, and shor
Because of recent changes, editorial if I remember correctly, section 2.5
now reads as;
2.5. Allocation, Assignment, Reallocation, Reassignment
Allocation - Address space delegated to an organization directly by ARIN
for the purpose of subsequent distribution by the recipient organization to
othe
+1 as to AS transfers.
I have no heartburn regarding this, and the existing unused policy tends
to show that this action is in fact quite rare and likely to be used only
when absolutely needed.
The only thing that I wish to express is that I do not want to ever see
IPv6 transfers, since the
11 matches
Mail list logo
