> On May 29, 2024, at 07:22, Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML
> wrote:
> There’s no advantage to ARIN policy by adding this constraint. It does not in
> any way improve ARIN’s ability to offer service to its members and it creates
> a situation where technological advances have a relatively high likel
> On May 24, 2024, at 22:31, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On May 24, 2024, at 00:16, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>>> On May 23, 2024, at 06:24, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>>> I agree that it should be a shared segment fabric
>> I’m on the fence about this. At first glance, y
> On May 24, 2024, at 03:54, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> ...The other is IX preparing and certifying peers, getting resources but then
> never deploying a switch fabric. Wanted to have a good revocation trigger.
> Likely to be used rarely if ever, but for thoroughness. Neither are corner
> cases.
This should be pointing out the obvious, but we need _either_ 2024-4 _or_
2024-5, but _definitely not both_. That would be bad, having two different
definitions that had to be kept synchronized.
I support having a stand-alone definition as in 2024-4, and removing all
descriptive language from
> On May 23, 2024, at 06:24, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>> On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 5:07 PM Tyler O'Meara wrote:
>> 1) We should only include abbreviations/other names for the term if they’re
>> actually used in the NRPM; I think future text that uses this definition
>> would be clearer if we selecte
> On Apr 22, 2024, at 08:04, Fernando Frediani wrote:
> …A convenience to divert the pool to supply addresses and support the
> emergence of IXPs with allowing them to act as RIRs and supply addresses to
> third parties.
I agree that that is a hypothetical danger. There are lots of hypothetica
Fernando: Owen is correct, the type of abuse you’re hypothesizing has not, in fact, occurred, in 32 years of IXPs. Since you’re the one proposing to impose a cost on everyone else, the burden falls on you to prove that is solves an actual problem, not on Owen to prove that it does not.
> On Apr 19, 2024, at 00:44, Ryan Woolley wrote:
> At ARIN 53, John Sweeting asked for clarification from the community on
> whether an internet exchange needs IP space beyond that used for the
> switching fabric, and whether IP allocations made to an IXP operator may need
> to be routable.
Sp
> On Jun 21, 2023, at 10:18 AM, Matt Peterson wrote:
> It's clear this proposal did not receive feedback from those of us who
> operate IXP's (or those who lived through the ep.net era). Renumbering events
> are often multi-year efforts for an IXP, this "savings" is not worth the
> operationa
Removing the program, with its criteria and fees, would not stop the practice.
I will be the first to admit that, when I was on the ARIN board, I was
completely against commercial brokerage of IP addresses, as a matter of
principle. I believed that IP addresses, when no longer needed, should b
> On Oct 19, 2021, at 7:02 PM, ARIN wrote:
> Board of Trustees:
> • Bram Abramson, 32M
> • Dan Alexander, Comcast Cable
> • Jeffrey Bedser
> • Ron da Silva, Quantum Loophole, Inc.
> • Peter Harrison, Colovore LLC
I’m glad to see the petition process worked.
> On Oct 9, 2021, at 5:58 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote:
> Has ARIN disclosed anything about why the NomCom chose to exclude two
> obviously-qualified candidates from the ballot when they didn’t yet have 2
> candidates per open seat, and the 3 candidates they did include are all less
> well-known
> On Oct 9, 2021, at 4:03 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> There's a petition for two people to be added to the Trustee ballot after
> being rejected by the nom com.
Yes! Go vote on the petitions, so you’ll have more than three choices to fill
the two open board seats, when the election comes.
> On Sep 17, 2021, at 3:42 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> Makes me want to say ‘let’s see the book’. It is an historic artifact that
> should be scanned and posted somewhere for reference.
I used to think that too.
Then I thought about it some more. Remember, it was just a notebook. Not a
da
> On Sep 9, 2021, at 3:32 AM, Steven Ryerse
> wrote:
> Since the day I first joined this forum there have been numerous comments in
> this forum about John Curran’s continued assertions that the ARIN Community
> Governs the Regions policy’s. John’s comments in this forum the last couple
> of
Apparently it was in the House Bill, but was removed in the Senate version, and
didn’t make it through conference.
-Bill
> On Dec 19, 2019, at 14:49, hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote:
>
> I thought the budget bill already passed. Did it contain the IPv4 sell
> provisions or
> On Dec 6, 2019, at 5:21 AM, scott wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, 4 Dec 2019, Alyssa Moore wrote:
>
>> https://mybroadband.co.za/news/internet/330379-how-internet-resources-wort
>> h-r800-million-were-stolen-and-sold-on-the-black-market.html
>> This seems to be a ...highly relevant development from
On Oct 4, 2018, at 21:44, Jo Rhett wrote:
> Bill, stop playing this nonsense. I referred to and respect your history,
> your attempt to play innocent is contemptible.
Mr. Rhett:
This exchange was, at first, mildly amusing. I thought that you were, perhaps,
just in a foul mood, and that a Socra
> On Oct 4, 2018, at 9:27 PM, Jo Rhett wrote:
>
>> How exactly am I freeloading, how am I not playing “nicely with others” or
>> “by the rules,”
>
> I’ve been watching you fight to ride free
Cite an example, please.
> If you won’t play the rules, there is no requirement that service is prov
> On Oct 4, 2018, at 9:13 PM, Jo Rhett wrote:
>
>> You’re entirely missing Michael’s point. DNSSEC is not a _treat_ that you
>> dangle in front of universities, it’s an operational requirement for _the
>> whole Internet_, of which your paying members are constituents. You’re
>> denying _me
> On Oct 4, 2018, at 11:10 AM, John Curran wrote:
> ARIN had been inconsistent in our approach to ... DNSSEC services over the
> years.
There is no room for inconsistency in the application of security.
You’re entirely missing Michael’s point. DNSSEC is not a _treat_ that you
dangle in fron
> On Oct 4, 2018, at 9:29 AM, Michael Sinatra
> wrote:
> I have received word of an apparent change in ARIN operational policy...
> ...no longer accepting DNSSEC DS records for reverse DNS for those resources
> that are not covered by RSA or LRSA. This is a change from current
> operational
> On Jul 13, 2018, at 6:35 AM, Ronald F. Guilmette
> wrote:
> I would like to know if there
> is, or would be, general hostility to the notion of ARIN asking for
> concrete documentation of the identities of the beneficial owners (say,
> for 25% ownership or above) of non-publicly-traded corpor
> On Jul 12, 2018, at 3:57 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette
> wrote:
> I am deeply curious to know whether or not ARIN, as part
> of its day-to-day normal operations, requires the production of any
> specific documentation of, or information about the beneficial owners of
> corporate/LLC legal entities
>> The LACNIC community is discussing a global policy proposal to create a
>> Global Internet Registry (GIR).
>> https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2018-1;jsessionid=419E05AAC9F2F52E5D27DDCCF4D6B727?language=en
I very much support it.
The mess that inter-regional transfers and
> On May 19, 2016, at 11:52 AM, Mike Burns wrote:
> I want community members to understand that this is evidence that the market
> is a natural conserver of valuable resources.
Help me understand what evidence you see that any market has ever conserved
expensive FIB slots.
> ...and naturally
> On Jul 22, 2015, at 7:07 AM, David Huberman
> wrote:
>
>> In the current process, this interview/questionnaire is done by the nomcom.
>> Questions are proposed by the public, edited or consolidated as appropriate
>> by the nomcom, posed to candidates, and the responses are published to
>> the
> On Jul 22, 2015, at 6:37 AM, David Huberman
> wrote:
> What if ARIN had a staffer conduct a long form interview with each of the
> Board candidates during the campaign window, and publish the interview to
> PPML or wherever? That would allow incumbents to be asked some difficult
> questions
> On Jul 20, 2015, at 9:17 AM, David Huberman
> wrote:
> What fair and objective data does a voter have to judge how well an incumbent
> is doing?
Even speaking as someone who’s been reelected several times, this bothers me
quite a lot too, and I’m really glad David’s brought it up for discus
> On Jun 4, 2015, at 10:00 PM, Steven Ryerse
> wrote:
>
> I take it from your tone that you don’t think that keeping the ARIN Registry
> Database is as important than Needs Testing.
Then perhaps you should read the words, rather than imputing a “tone.”
You’ve managed, at the very least, to w
76 - Fax
>
> ℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
> Conquering Complex Networks℠
>
> From: Bill Woodcock [mailto:wo...@pch.net]
> Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2015 2:59 PM
> To: Steven Ryerse
> Cc: John Curran; arin-ppml@arin.net List
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2015-2
>
> On Jun 4, 2015, at 17:47, Steven Ryerse wrote:
>
> I would point out that ARIN is doing the opposite of fulfilling one of the
> main reasons ARIN was formed - and that is to keep the database accurate.
Funny, I was there, and I don't remember that being on the agenda. What I
remember is ba
> On Jun 4, 2015, at 5:29 AM, David Conrad wrote:
>
> Failing to update the contact information of a buyer of heroin means that law
> enforcement will no longer have records that reflect reality, thereby
> defeating the point of law enforcement.
Or something to that effect. But the point of
This is something we've had a plan for for fifteen years, but were unable to
get traction with the other four RIRs on. At the time, two other RIRs. :-)
Yes, it's an excellent idea. Unfortunately, inter-RIR politics meant that we
got ERX instead, which is a crap idea.
-Bi
I certainly HOPE it doesn't require a policy proposal. It shouldn't. Nate,
what's the quickest process to get this feature added?
-Bill
> On Apr 18, 2015, at 16:47, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
> +1
>
> ARIN:
>
> Do we need a policy proposal for this?
>
> Ted
>
>> On
The point isn't the size of the block, it's the cost of the route.
-Bill
> On Feb 17, 2015, at 08:23, Steven Ryerse wrote:
>
> Your point is valid and I agree that IPv6 doesn’t need those needs tests
> except maybe for large blocks. The routing table is always an issue
> - increase the reserve pool to a /15
> - increase the minimum allocation for an IXP to a /22
Quadrupling the allocation while doubling the pool halves the number of IXPs
served, and I think it would be unfortunate and short-sighted to let that
happen.
To inject some facts into the debate:
ht
On Jun 6, 2014, at 8:06 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> Why is it "fair" to force a willing seller and a willing buyer to submit to
> an additional step…?
“Fair” is not a word that I’d use in this context. I would, however, say that
the additional regulatory check is “necessary” when a transact
I would like to apologize to the list, and most especially to David Huberman,
for the inexcusable snideness of my reply a couple of days ago.
In replying to a posting that I disagreed with, I allowed myself to engage in
an escalation of rhetoric that was profoundly disrespectful, and which I nev
>>> The ARIN CEO, ARIN's General Counsel, the Harvard economist ARIN pays,
>>> professors who study markets, brokers who operate in the market, and
>>> buyers and sellers who buy and sell in the market have all told the
>>> ARIN community the same story for around 5 years now: the market is
>>> goi
>> 11.7 Resource Allocation Guidelines
>>
>> The Numbering Resources requested come from the global Internet Resource
>> space, do not overlap previously assigned space,
_Previously_ assigned space, or _currently_ assigned space?
Like David, I’m struggling to understand what problem is being so
That's because your car isn't a scarce public resource. I think you'd find a
different situation altogether if you tried to sell a radio station license to
someone who wasn't prepared to accept the responsibilities of the license.
-Bill
> On Feb 12, 2014, at 15:00, "Lee D
On Jan 9, 2014, at 3:11 PM, Aaron wrote:
> When I got my IXP allocation I was told that I couldn't host any
> infrastructure on it - web sites, monitoring boxes, mail servers and that it
> was only to be given out to exchange members. I use other IP space to host
> the exchange's web, mail
43 matches
Mail list logo
