Owen –
Ah, I follow now, my mistake. Thanks for the clarification.
Doug
--
Douglas J. Camin
d...@dougcamin.com
From: Owen DeLong
Date: Friday, August 4, 2023 at 5:23 PM
To: Douglas Camin
Cc: Scott Leibrand , arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy
No, I’m looking to replace Scott’s language specifying organizations that may
have IPv4 addresses, but don’t yet have any directly issued by an RIR.
There are multiple places an ISP may get IP addresses these days besides an
upstream provider (e.g. a leasing agency, etc.).
Owen
> On Aug 4,
Owen –
Thanks for the input, looking to clarify.
In the proposal, it suggests breaking Section 4.2.2 into multiple subsections.
Scott’s suggestion was for new subsection 4.2.2.2 “ISPs with Existing
Addresses.”
Your language looks like it may apply to new subsection 4.2.2.1 “ISPs without
As long as we are wordsmithing this, may I humbly suggest:
“All ISP organizations who have no IPv4 resources directly issued to them by an
RIR qualify for an initial allocation of up to a /22”.
Owen
> On Aug 3, 2023, at 22:35, Scott Leibrand wrote:
>
> The placement of "only" in "All ISP
Scott –
Great catch, thank you. Leif is correct that was an unintended transcription
error when editing the sections out. I’ll get it updated.
Doug
--
Douglas J. Camin
ARIN Advisory Council
d...@dougcamin.com
From: ARIN-PPML on behalf of Leif Sawyer via
ARIN-PPML
Date: Friday, August 4,
Indeed -
I think that ‘only’ a transcription error, and your “solely” is where it was
supposed to have been. Solely does read better as well.
I’ll note that for the shepherd to correct.
Thanks Scott,
Leif
Leif Sawyer
GCI | he/him | Engineer, Network & Systems Delivery Engineering
t:
