From: John Curran [mailto:jcur...@arin.net]
Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2016 9:34 AM
To: Bill Buhler
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2-byte ASN policy
On Apr 6, 2016, at 10:48 AM, Bill Buhler
mailto:b...@tknow.com>> wrote:
What about a policy including a grace period before r
What about a policy including a grace period before reissue? For instance the
FCC will not reissue a call sign for two years after validation. This allows
the original licensee to correct the issue and come back into good grace. What
if ARIN started handling resources in that manner? They could
regards,
Bill Buhler
From: Dani Roisman [mailto:drois...@softlayer.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 10:40 AM
To: Bill Buhler; arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based
evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks
Based on the ARIN fee table of ISP classification:
/20 is the max allocation size of a X-Small ISP
/22 is the max allocation size of a XX-Small End User.
So there is a slight bias towards small ISPs, but they are in less of a
position to leverage NAT.
Thanks,
Bill Buhler
From: Dani Roisman
your point b) -- why limit the number of inbound transfers to
reach n size in a ?
Thanks,
Mark
From: "Bill Buhler" mailto:b...@tknow.com>>
To: "owen" mailto:o...@delong.com>>
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net>
I would love some help.
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 3:20 PM
To: Bill Buhler
Cc: Adam Thompson; arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based
evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4
believe that meets all of your concerns. I would prefer companies get
everything they think they will need in one operation, but I don’t want to have
fear drive them into buying the max amount just in case.
Best regards,
Bill Buhler
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
Sent: Monday
encourages companies to go for a small initial allocation rather than buying
their max possible size initially knowing that they next time they will need to
go through needs testing.
Any thoughts?
Bill Buhler
From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf
Of Owen DeLong
of careful use of NAT would support a fairly large public
network.
Best regards,
Bill Buhler
From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf
Of Steven Ryerse
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2015 11:48 AM
To: Owen DeLong
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml
I agree with Gary, if it isn't owned they are a ISP, and should behave
accordingly.
Bill Buhler
TeKnowledgy, Inc. | Curing IT headaches since 2009
-Original Message-
From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf
Of Gary T. Giesen
Sent: Friday, Augu
one right I would
love to have by default would be a vote without paying an additional fee, but
that is of course another topic.
Best regards,
Bill Buhler
TeKnowledgy, Inc. | Curing IT headaches since 2009
675 East 2100 South, Suite 110
Salt Lake City, Utah 84106
385-202-7100 office
385
I have to agree with David +1
-Original Message-
From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf
Of David Huberman
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 10:01 AM
To: Jimmy Hess
Cc: ARIN PPML (p...@arin.net)
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Equality in address space assign
more sense...
Best regards,
Bill Buhler
-Original Message-
From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf
Of james machado
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 3:47 PM
To: William Herrin
Cc: Gary T. Giesen; arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IPv6 End
I support it as well.
Bill
From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf
Of Matthew Petach
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 7:26 PM
To: David Farmer
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] LAST CALL: Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-12:
Anti-hijack Policy
Seconded, must doesn't hurt the meaning, and is firmer.
-Original Message-
From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf
Of Leif Sawyer
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 2:05 PM
To: David Farmer; Kevin Kargel; arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommen
OK, that makes sense. Thanks for the clarification.
Bill
From: Scott Leibrand [mailto:scottleibr...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2014 11:06 AM
To: Bill Buhler
Cc: CJ Aronson; David Huberman; arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-12: Anti-hijack Policy
No, they
So if my understanding is correct, they basically performed a routing man in
the middle attack on live IPv6 prefixes. Pardon my understanding level, but how
did they keep from creating routing loops and service interruptions. I'm also a
little concerned about performance and link loads. Are my c
17 matches
Mail list logo
