reasonable.
If the definition of who is an IXP for the purposes of getting space, that is
an entirely different proposal and problem statement. In 4.4 it does say “ARIN
will make a list of these blocks publicly available.” Is that information
available with the IXP name etc?
Thanks,
Kevin Blumberg
Andrew,
My view is slightly more nuanced than yes/no. It depends on the impact of
changing the goal posts on space that has already been allocated/assigned.
I support the policy as discussed but I have concern that it will get wrapped
up over this issue.
Thanks,
Kevin Blumberg
From: ARIN
reviously provided.
Thanks,
Kevin Blumberg
From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of William Herrin
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 4:08 PM
To: ARIN
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-14: No Specified Transfers for
4.1.8.2 Blocks
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 11:06 AM ARIN ma
David,
I would rather see a limit or delay on the number of times an organization can
go back to the waitlist than prevent organizations from getting any space from
the wait list.
Would I be more supportive if the number was larger? I don’t believe that is
the right control mechanism, so no.
boundary and believe it should be
stricken as a requirement. The change to /22 was meant to limit abuse, not
penalize legitimate requests.
Thanks,
Kevin Blumberg
From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of Tom Pruitt
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2019 3:45 PM
To: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Fwd: Advisory
Jordi,
I do not support the petition as I view the problem statement as invalid. The
proposal co-mingles contractual obligations, implementation and requirements
outside of the purview of ARIN.
The NRPM does not trump the Registration Services Agreement which this proposal
attempts to override
David,
I support the policy as written.
Thanks,
Kevin Blumberg
From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of David Farmer
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2019 10:27 AM
To: ARIN
Cc: ARIN-PPML List
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] LAST CALL - Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: POC
Notification and Validation Upon
The correct URL 😊
https://teamarin.net/2019/02/27/getting-ready-for-the-big-reveal/
Kevin
From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of John Curran
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2019 11:58 AM
To: ARIN-PPML List
Subject: [arin-ppml] FYI - Major upgrade this weekend to www.arin.net and ARIN
Online
Foks -
This
- existant and
never-before-seen kind of confidentiality privilege?
It seems to me that you are creating this new secrecy privlege (for issuances,
transfers, and updates) purely by executive fiat, just at this moment, and only
to cover this specific set of curcumstances and/or this specific
rpose or needs based
justification at a rate consistent with intended use.
Thanks,
Kevin Blumberg
-Original Message-
From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of ARIN
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2019 12:50 PM
To: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-2: Waiting List Block Size
SWIP’ing.
Based on the response from the floor (please correct me if I understood it
incorrectly). I can charge a nominal fee where appropriate, as my business
practice. If a client refuses the fee, that does not put me out of compliance
with the policy.
Thanks,
Kevin Blumberg
From: ARIN-PPML
what
would constitute an editorial change would probably be helpful.
Thanks,
Kevin Blumberg
From: Chris Woodfield [mailto:ch...@semihuman.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 1:21 PM
To: Owen DeLong ; arin-ppml@arin.net
Cc: Kevin Blumberg
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN
can’t see “should” and “shall” being
considered an editorial change. To extend the policy cycle to another meeting
would be far worse.
Out of curiosity, how often has ARIN had to deal with SWIP issues like this,
where the other party ignored you?
Thanks,
Kevin Blumberg
From: ARIN-PPML
, implies that volunteers shouldn't handle Critical
functions or that paid staff shouldn't handle menial work?
AD: Should we substitute "Critical" with "Some"?
KB: Changing Critical to Some would be fine.
Thanks,
Kevin Blumberg
From: Andrew Dul [mailto:andrew@qu
David,
I appreciate that, I missed it 😊
Given that I will add one more concern.
I am opposed to the policy if it includes “or other Information Technology
services”. That would basically be any defined organization that has a website.
Thanks,
Kevin Blumberg
From: David Farmer [mailto:far
handle Critical
functions or that paid staff shouldn't handle menial work?
Thanks,
Kevin Blumberg
-Original Message-
From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of Andrew Dul
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 11:21 AM
To: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re
to pick one would be in order, but until then I don’t think it
matters as long as it is consistent with the wording used in the section.
Thanks,
Kevin Blumberg
From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of Chris Woodfield
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 2:03 PM
To: David
he other regions have and having
a policy implemented with out that understanding will be problematic.
Thanks,
Kevin Blumberg
-Original Message-
From: Mike Burns [mailto:m...@iptrading.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 9:39 AM
To: Kevin Blumberg ; arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: RE:
Are there active polices in the other regions that rely on this policy? I
understand there have been discussions, however I don't know what the status
is/was.
Thanks,
Kevin Blumberg
-Original Message-
From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of ARIN
will be invoiced annually based on the organization resources in the ARIN
registry.”
Kevin Blumberg
From: David Farmer [mailto:far...@umn.edu]
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2017 3:05 PM
To: Kevin Blumberg
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-8: Amend the definition
ay to
qualify as a Community Network?
I wrote a policy in 2016 that tried to address some of these issues, it was
abandoned at the time ( https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2016_7.html )
Kevin Blumberg
-Original Message-
From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of
possibly “reassigned IPv6 address blocks”.
Thanks,
Kevin Blumberg
From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of David Farmer
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 4:00 PM
To: ARIN
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Revised: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of
David,
Your suggestion is like what I suggested on June 19th. I do like the addition
of SWIP’ing a /48 if requested.
I also want to echo what others have said in the past couple of days. I believe
it will be a mistake to set the boundary requiring all /48’s to be SWIP’ed.
Thanks,
Kevin
I do not support this policy. At a minimum, it would remove both the 4.4 Micro
Allocations and 4.10 Dedicated IPv4 block to facilitate IPv6 Deployment. Both
of those sections have reserved space and are "active" in Section 4.
Thanks,
Kevin Blumberg
-Original Message-
From:
user with 1 computer could get a /48 or a company with 5000
computers.
Another way around the issue is to require SWIP when a /48 or larger block is
routed. If the block is not part of the routing table I don't see how a simple
assignment is going to help anyone.
Thanks,
Kevin Blumberg
ke of paperwork.
I believe that larger than /56 should be the bar.
Thanks,
Kevin Blumberg
-Original Message-
From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of Peter Thimmesch
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 8:25 PM
To: hostmas...@uneedus.com
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re:
imple and removing the POC.
5) Yes.
Thanks,
Kevin Blumberg
-Original Message-
From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of Andrew Dul
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 9:40 PM
To: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-8: Removal of Indirec
every 6 months?
I would prefer that edge cases be handled by the standard process and the
number of variables be kept to a minimum here.
Thanks,
Kevin Blumberg
From: Jason Schiller [mailto:jschil...@google.com]
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 1:07 PM
To: Kevin Blumberg
Cc: Scott Leibrand ; ARIN
of the /18?
There is another option.
D) you can use this policy once every 3 months
Thanks,
Kevin Blumberg
From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of Jason Schiller
Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2017 2:54 PM
To: Scott Leibrand
Cc: ARIN-PPML List
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml
section 8.5.
Thanks,
Kevin Blumberg
-Original Message-
From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of David R
Huberman
Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 10:19 AM
To: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2016-3 Revisited
I thought of a possible problem with the anti
waiver if requested,
not a removal of reciprocity from the entire section.
Kevin Blumberg
-Original Message-
From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of Joe Provo
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 12:29 PM
To: ARIN-PPML List
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN Re
sentence, that allows for the relaxing of the reciprocal rule,
in the event the gaining RIR is below the global average in IPv4 space.
Kevin Blumberg
From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of Scott Leibrand
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 4:14 PM
To: Mike Burns
Cc: ARIN
ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of Kevin Blumberg
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2016 6:30 PM
To: Owen DeLong ; ARIN-PPML List
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2016-7 -- Integrate community networks
into Existing ISP Policy
Owen,
As the author of 2016-7 I disagree.
Network's will never
get used given the onerous requirements.
Thanks,
Kevin Blumberg
-Original Message-
From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2016 4:19 PM
To: ARIN-PPML List
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2
David,
I support 2016-6 and the removal of HD Ratio from the NRPM.
I believe that the policy should move forward but doesn’t address concerns that
I have with Community Networks.
Rather than attempt to suggest revisions to this policy I have submitted a
separate policy.
Thanks,
Kevin
Andrew,
I support the proposal as written without the additional transfer language.
I believe that adding in transfers complicates the proposal and based on the
current available space, will not be needed for a number of years.
Thanks,
Kevin Blumberg
From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net
licy puzzle, the "Criteria" is what defines it.
Thanks,
Kevin Blumberg
> -Original Message-
> From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Dani Roisman
> Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 9:21 PM
> To: arin-ppml@arin.net
y the "in region" requirements.
2) XYZ Company (America) wishing to perform an 8.4 transfer to XYZ Company
(Australia) would be limited based on the source entity being "in region".
Thanks,
Kevin Blumberg
-Original Message-
From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:a
I managed to hit the send button before completion.
The link to the faq is
https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/member-support/info/faqs/faq-joining
Thanks,
Kevin Blumberg
From: Kevin Blumberg
Sent: April 13, 2015 2:06 AM
To: 'Milton L Mueller'; arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: RE:
Milton,
All of the example net blocks that used in your examples below appear to be
routed to equipment in the RIPE region.
I would prefer that the RIPE porition is clarified as my understanding is that
the IP allocations are to be used inside of the region.
On the RIPE website the following
e by, the organization.
Thanks,
Kevin
From: Jason Schiller [mailto:jschil...@google.com]
Sent: September 16, 2014 10:45 PM
To: Kevin Blumberg
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net List (arin-ppml@arin.net)
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-20: Transfer Policy Slow Start
and Simplified Needs Ver
Jason,
In a situation that a request would be approved under a 4.x section, but not in
8.x, which would take precedence?
Thanks,
Kevin Blumberg
___
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List
? Are there any
suggestions you might have to fix the issue that doesn't leave duplicate text
in the NRPM?
Thanks,
Kevin Blumberg
-Original Message-
From: wher...@gmail.com [mailto:wher...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of William Herrin
Sent: May 6, 2014 12:30 AM
To: Kevin Blumberg
Cc: arin-ppm
tilization Reporting and Justification. All other
ARIN policies regarding the reporting of justification information for the
allocation of IPv4 and IPv6 address space will remain in effect.
Thanks,
Kevin Blumberg
> -Original Message-
> From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailt
David,
There are going to be lots of reasons why an ISP can't provide space to a
downstream post run out, even when on paper they have space.
1) Space dedicated to another region
2) Cost Prohibitive for downstream due to cost recovery.
3) Forward looking project that fits within the 24 month win
n End User template.
Proposed text:
Retain existing NRPM text.
Add to Section 2:
Any organization which does not clearly fit into one of the above categories
shall be treated as an LIR/ISP for policy purposes.
Thanks,
Kevin Blumberg
___
PP
46 matches
Mail list logo
