On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 11:37 PM Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML
wrote:
>
> ARIN is responsible and diligent in evaluating requests.
>
> The fact that only a single /16 has been issued to date makes me think that
> this is a solution in search of a problem.
>
> I think the policy is fine as it is.
>
I
On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 4:22 PM Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML
wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, legal person is also problematic as it would eliminate
> unincorporated business entities.
>
> Suggest adding legal person as an additional term to the proposed language
> rather than replacing it.
>
> Owen
>
My
On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 9:51 PM Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML
wrote:
>
> Personally, I am of the opinion that if we are going to take this step, we
> should
> consider new terminology altogether.
>
> Perhaps “registration” or “issuance” or similar.
>
> The meaning of allocation and assignment while a
On Sun, Sep 18, 2022 at 8:03 AM William Herrin wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 7:46 AM ARIN wrote:
> > Any organization may be issued a single Autonomous System Number (ASN) upon
> > request. Organizations that have space issued under Multiple Discrete
> > Networks policy may be issued one A
On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 10:39 PM William Herrin wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> As you well know, the general member mailing list is closed to the
> public. I do not have access and could not raise an issue there if I
> wanted to.
Technically, the list archive is open to the public (at
least it is right n
Support. At some future point it may make sense to
eliminate (or reduce the size of) the reserved pools,
but until we have consensus as to how to right-size
those pools, they should have priority to top them
off.
___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this mess
Support. In practice basically a no-op, but clarification
of intent is always goodness to avoid future confusion.
___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubsc
On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 5:21 PM John Curran wrote:
> To that end, at this time it would be good to know from everyone:
>
> 1. Are you in favor of ARIN making the policy change specified in the
> revised "Advisory Council Recommendation Regarding NRPM 4.1.8. Unmet
> Requests” ?
Support as wri
On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 2:28 PM David Farmer wrote:
> All comments are appreciated.
In Favor of the policy.
___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:16 PM, ARIN wrote:
> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 6 October 2017 and decided to send the
> following to Last Call:
>
> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration
> Requirements
>
> Feedback is encouraged during the Last Call period.
Support
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Andrew Dul wrote:
> Do others feel that this part of the definition could be improved too? If so
> what requirements were would you like to see in the policy language.
I do not want to see ARIN have to decide (and create a formal definition of)
what a non-profi
On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Andrew Dul wrote:
> The shepherds have requested feedback on a proposed update to the draft.
> The draft has not yet been formally updated.
I support the proposed changes to allow continued
use of reserved pool numbers in the same manor for
which they were initial
On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 6:50 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On May 5, 2016, at 13:09 , Jason Schiller wrote:
>
> I would go s far as to direct ARIN staff to provide provisional approval.
> The process would look like this:
>
> Customer: ARIN, I have a /16. I am currently using 200 IPs as documente
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I’d be OK with this, but given that there is remaining free pool for these
> resources, I’m not sure that it isn’t better to have a clear policy that when
> the resources in these categories are no longer needed, voluntary return to
> A
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 4:55 PM, ARIN wrote:
> Policy statement:
>
> Add to Section 8.3 and Section 8.4 under the "Conditions on source of the
> transfer:"
>
> Address resources from a reserved pool (including those designated in
> Section 4.4 and 4.10) are not eligible for transfer.
I am in
On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 10:23 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
>
> If I could simply consolidate everything into the POC I want and not POCs
> made up by others, I'd be a happy camper.
+1 to making Marty happy.
More to the point, I would agree that while there are
legitimate reasons to having multip
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 5:53 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
.
> I really like the idea of a requirement for an ACK by the POC on POC creation.
>
> That should at least create an incentive to stop these records from being
> created
> by ISPs which will significantly reduce the problem space.
I actual
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 5:17 PM, ARIN wrote:
> ARIN-2014-14 has been revised. This draft policy is open for discussion
> on this mailing list.
> Draft Policy ARIN-2014-14
> Needs Attestation for some IPv4 Transfers
Trying to better understand the details.
> 2.An officer of the organizat
On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 6:48 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I see no advantage to 2014-22. I think when this block comes into play,
> since it is a particular designated block, ISPs will react relatively
> quickly to allow longer prefixes within this space when it becomes
> necessary.
Currently opp
On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 2:02 AM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
>
> A capitalistic model does not work for a finite resource like IP addresses.
> All that would happen is that a large company could just buy up all of the
> space, and then set its own price for everyone else. How's that for
> "fairness"
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Steven Ryerse
wrote:
>
> All of those stats are interesting but they are not what is important here.
> What is important is how many small Orgs that applied for the minimum
> allocation (as it was defined at the time of the allocation request) since
> ARIN was
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Gary,
.
> My concern is that transfers and allocations/assignments from the free pool
> should be treated the same.
I agree, and that is what I tried (and apparently failed) to state clearly.
_
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 6:04 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I disagree. While it is not specifically called out, the simple fact is that
> 8.3 transfer policy specifically states that IPv4 transfers should be subject
> to the same policies as IPv4 free pool allocations. It does make an exception
> f
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 12:37 AM, Steven Ryerse
wrote:
>
> It is a Comcast Fiber line but it goes thru a local Atlanta CLEC and the CLEC
> does not support ipv6 yet.
Regardless of the C in CLEC, if they are not supporting
IPv6, and can not articulate to you a plan to do so, it
does not sound lik
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Jason Schiller wrote:
> I oppose as written, but support the concept.
I do not yet have a clear leaning for/against this version of text,
but I too have some concerns. I, too, support the concept.
> There was some idea in the original policy that this addi
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 3:27 PM, ARIN wrote:
> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-9
> Resolve Conflict Between RSA and 8.2 Utilization Requirements
>
> On 17 July 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) recommended
> ARIN-2014-9 for adoption, making it a Recommended Draft Policy.
I am in support of t
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Mike Burns wrote:
> . How else are we going to get rid of the more than
> 1,000 /24s left as the dregs of decades of allocations?
Well, you could always reintroduce the proposal that
everyone who commented (on that proposal proposal)
would get a /24 given to t
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 2:58 PM, ARIN wrote:
> On 17 July 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted "ARIN-prop-210
> Simplifying Minimum Allocations and Assignments" as a Draft Policy.
>
> Draft Policy ARIN-2014-18 is below and can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_18.ht
On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Brett Frankenberger
wrote:
> ISP initial allocations and End User initial and additional assignment
> requests would not be able to be analyzed using such completely
> objective criteria.
While I expect humans will continue to be fallible,
over the decades from w
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 11:42 PM, Steven Ryerse
wrote:
>
> You are entitled to your opinion and I’m entitled to mine.
Absolutely, but you have been unable to articulate
a compelling scenario as to how this will negatively
impact the region and the members who request
numbers. If you would share
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 3:35 PM, Mike Burns wrote:
> Others have noted we are rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic with
> these IPv4 policy issues.
> Maybe it is time to metaphorically sweep those chairs into the sea so we can
> move on.
Perhaps that is an interesting idea. Remove nee
On Jul 14, 2014 7:02 PM, "David Huberman"
wrote:
>
> So I don't get something:
>
> If it's 80% overall, wouldn't this have an affect on of many XL networks,
almost all of whom would be immediately eligible for more space even though
they weren't eligible previously?
>
> I feel like in missing some
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Steven Ryerse
wrote:
>
> Its more complicated than that. I’ve submitted the proposed policy change
> below to the AC. Obviously at this early stage I don’t know if the Community
> will accept this or not but 2014-13 complicates this proposal.
I appears to me t
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 7:31 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Andrew Dul wrote:
.
>> May I suggest the following rewrite to clarify that an organization can
>> retain their addresses through a transfer.
.
> If there is community support for allowing organizati
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 8:37 PM, Jeffrey Lyon
wrote:
> Owen,
>
> I would be extremely grateful if you would be kind enough to take
> charge of introducing the removal of needs testing for /20 and longer
> as a policy proposal.
Perhaps I was unclear in my reply. I apologize.
My support was for Ow
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 8:04 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
.
> Actually, I believe that this circumstance is the reason that the immediate
> needs clause
> exists.
"Immediate need" occurred to me, too, but as the
NRPM can be a bit "dense" to parse, I had not had
time to review if it properly applies
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 8:16 PM, ARIN wrote:
> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 19 June 2014 and decided to
> send the following to an extended last call:
>
> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-12: Anti-hijack Policy
I support this policy as currently written.
While I believe that ARIN wi
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
> I disagree. It's not as clear cut as you'd like to fantasize it is.
It never is.
But I have found myself supporting policy changes
when clear, real life, examples were presented
that showed that good policy resulted in badness
(or rocks
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 7:31 PM, Mike Burns wrote:
> Hi Gary,
>
> The two are not equal propositions.
Never claimed they were. However, Steven stated
that even one transfer not being recorded in the
database was unacceptable. We now learn that
accuracy is not actually a fundamental princip
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 5:40 PM, Steven Ryerse
wrote:
> Even one transfer that doesn't update the database is one too many
Playing devils advocate then, I take it you are in favor of moving
to rescind (and then re-issue) any IP Numbers for which the
whois validation has not been confirmed (by the
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>
>> On Jun 5, 2014, at 3:38 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/5/2014 2:32 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> Personally, I don't believe that IPv4 runout changes the need for policy
>>> that attempts to preserve fairness in how addresses are (re
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 6:39 AM, John Curran wrote:
..
> Matthew -
>
> A typical example
.
> At this point, some number of requesters will abandon the process.
I can, for some values of understanding, understand this.
But I think that is a failure by the requester, not ARIN,
and we shoul
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Andrew Dul wrote:
> The ARIN AC would appreciate input from the community on this policy.
>
> Specifically, do you support raising the number of participants required
> to obtain an IXP micro allocation from 2 to 3?
I support raising the number to 3 for the reason
On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 8:38 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
> This is an example of how policies penalize legitimate organizations
> needing to do legitimate transfers. In my opinion the Polices have swung
> so far towards preventing abuse they impact legitimate transfers.
>
Let us imagine a compani
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 10:56 PM, David Farmer wrote:
> Personally, I think we have to clarify out of region use before we can come
> to any rational policy discussion that deals with the issue staff has
> raised. Again, hence the problem statement put forward.
And due to that inability to
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 4:36 PM, David Farmer wrote:
> On 2/5/14, 17:36 , Andrew Dul wrote:
>> Does the community support raising the minimum requirement for IXPs from
>> 2 to 3?
>
>
> I support the change from a two participants to a three participant standard
> to qualify as an Internet Exch
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 3:31 PM, David Huberman
wrote:
> So what if the policy/process resulted in 8.2 requests being something like:
>
> - submit request form
> - attach letter from attorney currently admitted to a bar[1] indicating the
> transfer request is bona fide
>
> That's how it's done i
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 6:21 PM, John Curran wrote:
...
> That is correct (and reflects current practice handling resource requests.)
John,
I support the policy, but I do have a few questions that
would help finalize my thinking (that I do not recall seeing
asked or answered). I understand that
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 3:53 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> More, "plurality" makes the 20% rule needlessly complicated. I have to
> keep 20% in the ARIN region... unless I have 23% in the RIPE region
> and then I need to keep 24% in the ARIN region unless I have 30% in
> the APNIC region in whi
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Steven Ryerse
wrote:
> I disagree. Unlike say land which they aren't making more of, address schemes
> can alway be updated like IPv4 to IPv6. When IPv6 runs out we'll switch to
> IPv8 or whatever (albeit at a cost) or something better than IP.
Obligatory xkcd r
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote:
> Hello all,
I am going to differentiate between principals and practices.
Practices should not be in the (resulting) principals document
(practices should be, and in many cases are, in the NRPM).
> 1) Do you support the principle of e
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 11:59 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> What kind of value does the needs-based policy provide the community
> when it is applied to address transfers, that don't reduce the free
> pool size anyways?
There is the position that requiring a demonstration of "need"
also serves t
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 11:44 PM, Steven Ryerse
wrote:
> The day is coming where IPv4 will become a whole lot more scarce as ARIN's
> supply decreases. The needs based policies will need to be constantly
> tightened "to keep from running out".
Why should they need to be tightened? ARIN will ru
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
.
> * people who attack the elimination of needs assessments on the grounds that
> "there are bad people out there who want to make money on addresses" seem to
> be missing the point. Nearly all of the organizations applying for IP
> a
54 matches
Mail list logo
