Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2024-8: Restrict the Largest Initial IPv6 Allocation to /20

I would argue that the number of POPs and the number of customers per POP in the largest $CABLECO in the US probably warrants a /16 even though they have not received one. If they had properly applied for one, they might not be in the current unfortunate situation where their residential

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2024-8: Restrict the Largest Initial IPv6 Allocation to /20

> On Jun 27, 2024, at 14:35, William Herrin wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 2:31 PM David Farmer wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 4:23 PM William Herrin wrote: >>> John Curran has already said that ARIN would accept a wide range of >>> esoteric network designs as justifying an initial

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2024-8: Restrict the Largest Initial IPv6 Allocation to /20

> On Jun 27, 2024, at 14:30, David Farmer via ARIN-PPML > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 4:23 PM William Herrin > wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 2:19 PM David Farmer > > wrote: >> > To qualify for a /16 or /20, you must show your

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2024-8: Restrict the Largest Initial IPv6 Allocation to /20

> On Jun 27, 2024, at 11:49, William Herrin wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 11:27 AM John Santos wrote: >> I don't know the use case, and I don't >> think anyone else here does or if they do, they haven't described it. > > I don't know the use case that was documented for the /16

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2024-8: Restrict the Largest Initial IPv6 Allocation to /20

> On Jun 27, 2024, at 11:12, William Herrin wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 2:16 PM Owen DeLong wrote: >>> On Jun 26, 2024, at 06:55, William Herrin wrote: >>> Folks seeking a /16 are doing it with paperwork tigers. >> >> Are there “folks seeking a /16”? > > I know of no imminent plague

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2024-8: Restrict the Largest Initial IPv6 Allocation to /20

> On Jun 26, 2024, at 06:55, William Herrin wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 2:15 PM Scott Leibrand > wrote: >> Why is this policy needed if "only a single IPv6 allocation exceeds a /20 in >> size"? > > Hi Scott, > > I'd rather have an easy time justifying the IPv6 addresses I need and

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2024-8: Restrict the Largest Initial IPv6 Allocation to /20

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. Owen > On Jun 25, 2024, at 11:32, ARIN wrote: > > On 20 June 2024, the ARIN

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - ARIN-2024-2: WHOIS Data Requirements Policy for Non-Personal Information

Does whois currently allow PO Box numbers without a physical address also supplied? Owen > On Jun 25, 2024, at 11:33, ARIN wrote: > > The following Draft Policy has been revised: > > * ARIN-2024-2: WHOIS Data Requirements Policy for Non-Personal Information > > Revised text is below and

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2024-7: Addition of Definitions for General and Special Purpose IP Addresses

I don’t think there’s any gain from this proposal. The policies still need to spell out the restrictions on the use of such address space explicitly in the relevant section of the policy and I don’t see anywhere where referring to it generally would gain much. I think it’s mostly harmless,

Re: [arin-ppml] Feedback Request: Policy ARIN-2024-6: 6.5.1a Definition Update

> On Jun 22, 2024, at 10:09, John Santos wrote: > > I don't know if ISP and LIR are truly identical in meaning throughout the > NRPM and if not, then a global change would be a policy change and every > instance of that change should be considered and debated explicitly. It > would

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - ARIN-2024-4: Internet Exchange Point Definition

+1 Owen > On Jun 21, 2024, at 11:11, Tyler O'Meara via ARIN-PPML > wrote: > > I support this policy as written. > > Tyler > AS53727 > > On Fri, 2024-06-21 at 13:54 -0400, ARIN wrote: >> The following Draft Policy has been revised: >> >> * ARIN-2024-4: Internet Exchange Point Definition >>

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2023-8 - Reduce 4.1.8 Maximum Allocation

> On Jun 21, 2024, at 06:18, Mike Burns via ARIN-PPML > wrote: > > Hello, > > The wait list is three years long and the justifications are two year > projections. > The waitlist is not functioning adequately unless we consider a current > needs-test to be worthless. > There is a

Re: [arin-ppml] Feedback Request: Policy ARIN-2024-6: 6.5.1a Definition Update

e, and just add a requirement to 4.1.8 that the requesting LIR have a > physical network presence. > > Tyler > > > On Thu, 2024-06-20 at 11:33 -0500, Dale W. Carder wrote: > > Thus spake Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML (arin-ppml@arin.net > > <mailto:arin-ppml@

Re: [arin-ppml] Feedback Request: Policy ARIN-2024-6: 6.5.1a Definition Update

LIR have a > physical network presence. > > Tyler > > > On Thu, 2024-06-20 at 11:33 -0500, Dale W. Carder wrote: >> Thus spake Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML (arin-ppml@arin.net) on Thu, Jun 20, >> 2024 >> at 02:36:02AM -0700: >>> This is unfinished cleanu

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2023-8 - Reduce 4.1.8 Maximum Allocation

My opinions inline: > > > Questions for the Community: > a. Do we keep working on this policy? (Y/N - #1, #2) N > b. If yes, should consideration be given for some formula or weighted method > towards allocations to queue occupants? (#3, #4) Reducing the maximum allocation might be

Re: [arin-ppml] Feedback Request: Policy ARIN-2024-6: 6.5.1a Definition Update

This is unfinished cleanup… The correct solution (IMNSHO) is to eliminate the term ISP from the NRPM and replace all occurrences with LIR. There’s really no place in the NRPM where ISP (or equivalent) occurs that would not be better served for policy purposes by being replaced with LIR. Owen

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2024-5: Rewrite of NRPM Section 4.4 Micro-Allocation

> [ clip ] > > > > On Sat, May 25, 2024 at 12:46 AM Martin Hannigan <mailto:hanni...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> >> On Fri, May 24, 2024 at 4:42 PM Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML >> mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net>> wrote: >>> I think the best reso

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2024-4: Internet Exchange Point Definition

> On May 26, 2024, at 09:08, Bill Woodcock wrote: > > > >> 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

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2024-5: Rewrite of NRPM Section 4.4 Micro-Allocation

I think the best resolution here would be to move all definitional text for IX in both proposals into a proposed (and identical) definition in NRPM section 2 and then it’s harmonious and not in need of future synchronization regardless of whether either or both proposals are adopted. Since the

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2024-4: Internet Exchange Point Definition

are being explicitly called out as synonyms for the > avoidance of confusion. An ARIN policy document isn’t going to change common > usage, so that’s a non-goal. > >> On May 24, 2024, at 03:41, Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML >> wrote: >>> On May 22, 2024, at 21:24, Martin Ha

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2024-5: Rewrite of NRPM Section 4.4 Micro-Allocation

> On May 23, 2024, at 22:09, Martin Hannigan wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 11:16 PM Owen DeLong > wrote: > > [ clip ] > >> On the switch tech l2 piece ATM etc does contradict demonstrated standards. >> And if IX tech changes, policy could be changed. If

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2024-5: Rewrite of NRPM Section 4.4 Micro-Allocation

> On May 23, 2024, at 18:54, Martin Hannigan wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 21:31 Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML <mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net>> wrote: >> I support the spirit of the draft policy, but I’d like to see a change that >> I don’t think w

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2024-4: Internet Exchange Point Definition

> On May 22, 2024, at 21:24, Martin Hannigan wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 5:07 PM Tyler O'Meara via ARIN-PPML > mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net>> wrote: >> Overall I support this change, but I have a few nitpicks: >> >> 1) We should only include abbreviations/other names for the term

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2024-5: Rewrite of NRPM Section 4.4 Micro-Allocation

I support the spirit of the draft policy, but I’d like to see a change that I don’t think will be controversial… 1. ARIN should not be specifying network technologies. “A physically present ethernet switch” is way too specific for NRPM IMHO. I would propose, instead, that we specify “connected

Re: [arin-ppml] Feedback on ARIN 53 question on micro-allocations for IXPs

I’m not the one who is mixed up here. I know exactly what the policy intent was, I was very involved in creating the policy. IXPs are meant to provide value to the peers which gather at the IXP by facilitating the efficient delivery of traffic amongst participants in the IXP. One way to do

Re: [arin-ppml] Feedback on ARIN 53 question on micro-allocations for IXPs

A small probability of abuse is generally not seen as a reason to deny legitimate users. I think we can generally count on IXPs not to distribute large portions of their resources to cache providers that do not bring significant value to the users of the IX with those resources. To the best of

Re: [arin-ppml] Feedback on ARIN 53 question on micro-allocations for IXPs

I think that if it’s a cache that is serving the IX (i.e. the IX member networks) over the IX peering VLAN, that’s perfectly valid. Owen > On Apr 18, 2024, at 20:35, Fernando Frediani wrote: > > On 18/04/2024 21:34, Matt Peterson wrote: >> >> >> If the policy needs revision (John's

Re: [arin-ppml] Editorial Update ARIN-edit-2024-3: Edit 6.5.8.3 Section 2

Further, since we seem to be doing an s/assignment/allocation/g we might want to do that here as well? Owen > On Mar 26, 2024, at 13:33, William Herrin wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 1:14 PM ARIN wrote: >> Policy Statement: >> >> Current policy: When possible subsequent assignments

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - ARIN-2023-8: Reduce 4.1.8 Maximum Allocation

> On Feb 22, 2024, at 07:17, Fernando Frediani wrote: > >  >> On 22/02/2024 02:14, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >> Yes, YOU made those decisions for YOUR network. Now you are trying to force >> those decisions (specifically deployment of CGNAT) onto others through >> policy. No sale here. > >

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - ARIN-2023-8: Reduce 4.1.8 Maximum Allocation

> On Feb 21, 2024, at 15:34, Fernando Frediani wrote: > > On 21/02/2024 20:16, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >> >>> >>> >>> This is LACNIC waiting list which has always assigned *only to new >>> entrants*. It is currently easily on 5 years wait time. Is this still to >>> vague ? >>> >>>

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - ARIN-2023-8: Reduce 4.1.8 Maximum Allocation

> On Feb 21, 2024, at 10:09, Fernando Frediani wrote: > > Hi > > On Wed, 21 Feb 2024, 14:09 Owen DeLong, > wrote: >> >> >> >> As the old saying goes… a bird in the hand. >> >> Existing users have a track record and a current documented need if they are >>

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - ARIN-2023-8: Reduce 4.1.8 Maximum Allocation

> On Feb 21, 2024, at 08:46, Michael Peddemors wrote: > > Owen, I don't think these statements about IPv4 being obsolete help the > conversation, it is an opinion, and inflammatory.. While I get that > 'advocates' of IPv6 want to do whatever it takes to force a worldwide change, > the

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - ARIN-2023-8: Reduce 4.1.8 Maximum Allocation

I think any legitimate use of IPv4 addresses is no more or less worthy than any other. I see no reason to elevate theoretical new entrants to the point of depriving existing legitimate users. > > Oh yes, those who have already can never make a better usage of what they > already have and

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - ARIN-2023-8: Reduce 4.1.8 Maximum Allocation

legitimately spin up an organization for a few hundred dollars and a few hours of work. ARIN can prevent the recording of that organization’s subsequent acquisition in the ARIN database, but that’s about all that ARIN can do. Owen Fernando On 21/02/2024 04:13, Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - ARIN-2023-8: Reduce 4.1.8 Maximum Allocation

Anyone using IP to conduct business should recognize that IPv4 is out and they’ll need IPv6 to do business going forward. I oppose Fernando’s idea that the waitlist should be limited to new entrants. In addition to being bad policy, this is completely unenforceable and only leads to widespread

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - ARIN-2023-8: Reduce 4.1.8 Maximum Allocation

How about this: Each waitlist recipient specifies a desired block size and a minimum acceptable block size. Wait list recipients can change their minimum acceptable block size at any time so long as it is no shorter than their originally approved block size. When ARIN receives a block to

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2022-12: Direct Assignment Language Update

> On Feb 20, 2024, at 13:22, William Herrin wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 10:53 AM ARIN wrote: >> FROM: >> >> “Allocation - IP addresses delegated to an organization directly by ARIN for >> the purpose of subsequent distribution by the recipient organization to >> other parties. >> >>

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2024-1: Definition of Organization ID/Org ID

Personally, I think wish is fine. Alternatives would include “desire” or “intend”. I think “intend” is probably the best choice. Owen > On Feb 9, 2024, at 07:02, Dale W. Carder wrote: > > Thus spake William Herrin (b...@herrin.us) on Thu, Feb 08, 2024 at > 06:50:12AM -0800: >>> On Thu, Feb

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2024-1: Definition of Organization ID/Org ID

Since one technically needs to create an ORG-ID in order to request resources (if you don’t already have an ORG-ID), ORG-IDs are technically assigned to entities prior to them obtaining resources. As such, while I think this definition is somewhat on the correct track, technically, it is

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2024-1: Definition of Organization ID/Org ID

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 > On Feb 4, 2024, at 11:22, Tyler O'Meara via ARIN-PPML > wrote: > > That's

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2024-1: Definition of Organization ID/Org ID

I have resources registered under Owen DeLong and Family. This is not and has never been a business. While I do provide some of those resources to DeLong Consulting (which is a business), my resources are not registered to a business.I see no basis in ARIN policy or the RSA to invalidate or reject

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy 2023-4: Modernization of Registration Requirements

This should be fairly trivial… Since section 3.2 already contains the necessary specifications, it should be pretty easy. With that in place, it should be fairly trivial to update the policy by changing 4.3.7.1 to “…registered via an acceptable directory service which meets…” Same for

Re: [arin-ppml] Section 6.5.9 Community Network Allocations - Community Input for NRPM Working Group

> On Dec 20, 2023, at 12:20, Dale W. Carder wrote: > > Thus spake Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML (arin-ppml@arin.net) on Mon, Dec 18, > 2023 at 12:23:31PM -0800: >> I don’t favor striking the first paragraph. While the topics are out of >> scope for policy, th

Re: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - November 2023

I don’t know if anyone has asked. I do know that at the ARIN meeting in San Diego they were relatively vocally opposed. I know they have also opposed this on virtually every policy mailing list in every RIR where this has been proposed. Modulo a few IPv4 fan boys who are bad at math, IMHO, it

Re: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - November 2023

> On Dec 18, 2023, at 11:28, Fernando Frediani wrote: > > I think it is forcing too much for so little. Just give the IPv4 IXPs need to > operate and make people`s life easier. IXPs are a very important part of > Internet ecosystem that changes a lot of things for better in terms of >

Re: [arin-ppml] Section 6.5.9 Community Network Allocations - Community Input for NRPM Working Group

I don’t favor striking the first paragraph. While the topics are out of scope for policy, they provide a good record of the rationale behind this otherwise strange carveout. Losing the rationale would likely eventually lead to losing track of why the policy exists, potentially resulting in loss

Re: [arin-ppml] Sections 6.5.1.a and 6.5.1.b - More section 6 Potential simplifications from the NRPM Working Group

> On Dec 14, 2023, at 17:56, John Curran wrote: > >  > >>> On Dec 14, 2023, at 7:49 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> >>> On Dec 14, 2023, at 14:45, John Curran wrote: >>> …. >>> I am fairly clear what constitutes an ISP and/or a provider of connectivity >>> services, but what services

Re: [arin-ppml] Sections 6.5.1.a and 6.5.1.b - More section 6 Potential simplifications from the NRPM Working Group

> On Dec 14, 2023, at 14:45, John Curran wrote: > > >> On Dec 14, 2023, at 4:34 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >> Does this mean that ARIN will issue IPv6 to LIR requests with a stated >> intent to go into the IP resource management business separate from >> providing connectivity services? >

Re: [arin-ppml] Sections 6.5.1.a and 6.5.1.b - More section 6 Potential simplifications from the NRPM Working Group

> On Dec 13, 2023, at 16:37, John Curran wrote: > > > >> On Dec 13, 2023, at 6:57 PM, o...@delong.com wrote: >> >> At the time, the concept of address registration without network services by >> other than RIR had not occurred to me > > Owen - > > Whether it occurred to you or not is

Re: [arin-ppml] Sections 6.5.1.a and 6.5.1.b - More section 6 Potential simplifications from the NRPM Working Group

> On Dec 13, 2023, at 12:25, John Curran wrote: > >  > On Dec 13, 2023, at 1:40 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: On Dec 13, 2023, at 09:09, John Curran wrote: ... I note that that you make a strong presumption about "what ARIN is actually concerned about”, and while

Re: [arin-ppml] Sections 6.5.1.a and 6.5.1.b - More section 6 Potential simplifications from the NRPM Working Group

> On Dec 13, 2023, at 09:09, John Curran wrote: > >  >> On Dec 12, 2023, at 2:18 PM, owen--- via ARIN-PPML >> wrote: >> >> ISP is a very ambiguous term which carries a lot of different connotations >> to different people, most of which don’t describe the full range of ARIN >> member

Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Experience Report 4.10 Space

> On Dec 8, 2023, at 09:43, WOOD Alison * DAS > wrote: > > Happy Friday ARIN Community! > > The Policy Experience Report from ARIN 52 brought about great discussion on > 4.10 space and I would appreciate your feedback. > > A growing number of organizations are requesting multiple /24s

Re: [arin-ppml] Sections 6.5.1.a and 6.5.1.b - More section 6 Potential simplifications from the NRPM Working Group

This is a step in the wrong direction… If you’re going to unify the terminology, ISP->LIR would be the better choice. 6.5.1.b was initially placed in section 6 because it only applies to IPv6 addresses and there was significant backlash at the time against putting anything IPv6 specific in

Re: [arin-ppml] Sections 6.4.1 and 6.4.2 - Potential Simplification (from the NRPM Working Group)

> On Nov 28, 2023, at 10:23, Dale W. Carder wrote: > > Thus spake owen--- via ARIN-PPML (arin-ppml@arin.net > ) on Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 05:54:49PM -0800: >> >>> On Nov 20, 2023, at 12:59, Christian Tacit wrote: >>> >>> Dear ARIN Community Members, >>> >>> In our

Re: [arin-ppml] Section 6.1 – Potential Simplification (from the NRPM Working Group)

I see no advantage to retiring this section. While I don’t see significant disadvantage to retiring it, either, I think it provides a useful introduction and should be retained unless there is a compelling reason to get rid of it. Owen > On Nov 13, 2023, at 12:01, Christian Tacit wrote: > >

Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates (Chris Tacit)

> On Oct 29, 2023, at 00:16, William Herrin wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 28, 2023 at 10:36 PM Delong.com wrote: >> Overall, I think it provides a better result, but making a public record of >> absolutely everything would be cause more problems than it would solve >> IMHO. > > I have no qualms

Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates (Chris Tacit)

> On Oct 28, 2023, at 08:08, William Herrin wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 7:52 PM Owen DeLong wrote: On Oct 27, 2023, at 19:12, William Herrin wrote: >>> On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 6:36 PM Heather Schiller >>> wrote: The substantive discussion about the policy is held in

Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates (Chris Tacit)

> On Oct 27, 2023, at 19:39, Mike Burns wrote: > > Hi Owen, > > I don't really disagree and > I didn't find anything unreasonable but I thought the discussion about > leasing was lively and brought in new participants and ended too soon. But as > Heather points out, there is no double

Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates (Chris Tacit)

> On Oct 27, 2023, at 19:12, William Herrin wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 6:36 PM Heather Schiller > wrote: >> The substantive discussion about the policy is held in public. >> Behind closed doors, the AC deliberates on pretty narrow >> aspects, technically sound, fairness/impartiality

Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates

> On Oct 27, 2023, at 18:06, William Herrin wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 2:05 PM John Curran wrote: >> We will hold an appropriate consultation in the future to discuss this issue >> and so that the merits of various >> approaches can be considered. > > Am I crazy, or did ARIN just

Re: [arin-ppml] Should we disallow an AC member from submitting a policy proposal?

> On Oct 27, 2023, at 17:51, Joe Provo wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 11:01:55AM -0700, William Herrin wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 9:28???AM Andrew Dul wrote: >>> Should we disallow an AC member from submitting a policy proposal? > > No. > > This would represent a form of

Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates

> On Oct 27, 2023, at 14:05, John Curran wrote: > > >> On Oct 27, 2023, at 2:32 PM, Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML >> wrote: >> >> That sounds good in principle, Michael, but the reality is that none of the >> fora you suggested provide for an int

Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates (Chris Tacit)

I believe that proposal was abandoned due to substantial community opposition and little support expressed on the mailing list. If you were waiting for the meeting to get support expressed, that was a poor choice. The majority of policy development work is intended to be on the list with the

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

On Oct 26, 2023, at 21:01, Martin Hannigan wrote:On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 23:51 Fernando Frediani wrote:Well said. I find very weird that people try to put IP brokerage as a normal thing compared to other usual services that really develop the internet with evolution and

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

at the microphone and in the room was helpful in shaping the understanding for the next steps.   Hope that helps –     Doug       -- Douglas J. Camin ARIN Advisory Council d...@dougcamin.com   From: ARIN-PPML on behalf of Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML Date: Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 1:30 PM

Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates

That sounds good in principle, Michael, but the reality is that none of the fora you suggested provide for an interactive discussion amongst the broader community. While it’s true that the general-members list reached the electorate, the impact of the AC is felt not only by the electorate,

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

> On Oct 26, 2023, at 15:24, William Herrin wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 11:23 AM Owen DeLong wrote: >>> On Oct 26, 2023, at 10:11, William Herrin wrote: >>> Respectfully, this means you misunderstand the nature of Conflict of >>> Interest. >> >> Sure, but what does an address broker

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

My statement that what you are doing border on ad hominem has nothing to do with contrary to my thinking. I that to do with the fact that you are basically calling into question the character of an AC candidate and a sitting AC member without regard for the record presented by either one of

Re: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - October 2023 - ARIN-2023-7

I support this course of action, but I still believe there is value in adding a definition (as a separate proposal) of ORG-ID. Suggest: An ORG-ID is a unique handle pointing to an Organization record in the ARIN database. All resources in the ARIN database are tied to ORG-IDs. Owen > On Oct

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

> On Oct 26, 2023, at 10:11, William Herrin wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 10:01 AM Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML > wrote: >> I don’t see working for an address broker as an inherent COI for an AC member > > Respectfully, this means you misunderstand the nature o

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

> On Oct 26, 2023, at 10:42, William Herrin wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 10:18 AM Owen DeLong wrote: >> I know taking pot shots at the PDP and the AC is one of your favorite >> hobbies, but I think you’re a bit off base on this one. > > Stick your fingers in your ears if you like. I've

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

> On Oct 26, 2023, at 09:49, Fernando Frediani wrote: > > The very existence of PPML is a block and problem for IP brokers to freely do > business due to the restrictions policies developed here impact their ability > to do whatever their wish to fit to their customer needs. > Last time I

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

> On Oct 26, 2023, at 09:47, William Herrin wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 9:28 AM Andrew Dul wrote: >> On 10/26/2023 9:20 AM, William Herrin wrote: >>> It plummeted after the Board changed the AC's role from shepherding >>> policy proposals to developing policy proposals. >> >> I

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

> On Oct 26, 2023, at 09:44, William Herrin wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 9:42 AM John Curran wrote: >>> On Oct 26, 2023, at 12:20 PM, William Herrin wrote: >>> It plummeted after the Board changed the AC's role from shepherding >>> policy proposals to developing policy proposals. >>

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

> On Oct 26, 2023, at 08:42, Adam Thompson wrote: > > I can't believe I'm taking this position now, but I guess it's 2023 so here > we are... > > I don't agree that an IP broker *inherently* has a problematic conflict of > interest with ARIN, any more than every ARIN member on the AC has

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

Having served for several years on the AC along side someone who worked for one of the larger address brokers throughout most of that time, I will say that IMHO, she served with honor and distinction and was an excellent addition to the AC. I don’t see working for an address broker as an

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2022-12: Direct Assignment Language Update

Users can now make > reassignments and reallocations. Hope that helps. > > John S. > > On 10/2/23, 12:22 PM, "ARIN-PPML on behalf of Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML" > mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net> on behalf of > arin-ppml@arin.net <mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net>

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2022-12: Direct Assignment Language Update

> On Oct 2, 2023, at 07:21, Pellak, Kaitlyn via ARIN-PPML > wrote: > > Hi all, > >> The rationale used was that it was more straightforward to revise the >> definition across the NRPM rather than replace each relevant >> instance of “allocation” and “assignment” with another term >>

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2022-12: Direct Assignment Language Update

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 source of multiple misunderstandings over the years hsve been etched into

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2023-2: /26 initial IPv4 allocation for IXPs

> On Aug 15, 2023, at 19:33, Reese, Gus wrote: > > Greetings, > > The ARIN AC is hearing some initial opposition on the draft policy but we are > also sensing that some changes to the policy might change some minds. There > is a potential scenario in which a large number of IXPs will

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2022-12: Direct Assignment Language Update

silly anyway. We should just get on with IPv6 and then all this absurdity can become just a bad memory. Owen > > Regards, > Peter Potvin | Executive Director > -------------- > Accuris Technologies Ltd. >

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2022-12: Direct Assignment Language Update

; Douglas J. Camin > ARIN Advisory Council > d...@dougcamin.com <mailto:d...@dougcamin.com> > > From: ARIN-PPML on behalf of Owen DeLong via > ARIN-PPML > Date: Friday, August 4, 2023 at 3:23 PM > To: Scott Leibrand > Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2022-12: Direct Assignment Language Update

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

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2023-4: Modernization of Registration Requirements

Agreed… Legal requirements always supersede any sort of non-statutory policy or contract in any case, so there is no need to open this can of worms in policy. Owen > On Jul 27, 2023, at 07:31, Martin Hannigan wrote: > > Timely is open to interpretation by either party which means it could be

Re: [arin-ppml] Re-thinking Section 8.5.6

> On Jul 21, 2023, at 18:02, David Farmer wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 6:16 PM Delong.com > mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote: >> On Jul 21, 2023, at 15:39, David Farmer via ARIN-PPML > > wrote: >> >> So, it sounds like we are talking

Re: [arin-ppml] RPKI for Reallocations

> On Jun 25, 2023, at 11:06, Brian Knight wrote: > > Hi Owen, > > If I understand the below right, the assigner / upstream may delegate > authority (create ROAs) to originate the route, but may not delegate > management of that authority to the assignee. They must be able to delegate the

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2023-3: Amendment of the waitlist agreement to include a restriction on leasing

is%20an%20expression,and%20in%20their%20self%2Dinterest. > > > > On 2023-06-20 9:44 p.m., Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML wrote: >> What if the registrant issues the addresses to downstream BGP customers? >> >> Owen >> >> >>> On Jun 20, 2023, at 15:16

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2023-3: Amendment of the waitlist agreement to include a restriction on leasing

What if the registrant issues the addresses to downstream BGP customers? Owen > On Jun 20, 2023, at 15:16, William Herrin wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 8:54 AM ARIN wrote: >> Address space distributed from the waitlist will not be eligible for lease >> or transfer, with the exception

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2023-3: Amendment of the waitlist agreement to include a restriction on leasing

It’s an interesting idea, but thinking it through just a little, does the community or ARIN actually benefit from tis in any meaningful way? I couldn’t come up with any benefit myself, but I often get accused of lacking imagination. Owen > On Jun 20, 2023, at 09:51, Martin Hannigan wrote: >

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2023-3: Amendment of the waitlist agreement to include a restriction on leasing

Other than provider independent addresses (direct assignments from an RIR), virtually all IP addresses are intended for some form of leasing. Traditionally, this has been a model of leasing which inherently came with services which included the delivering of packets. As written, this policy

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2023-2: /26 initial IPv4 allocation for IXPs

We’re 12 years past IANA runout and only 50% of this reservation has been depleted. Seems to me that things are working as intended. There is no plan or expectation that n IPv4 free pool will last indefinitely into the future, nor should we be making attempts to do so on any level. I oppose

Re: [arin-ppml] Reclamation of Number Resources

I doubt this will really set any precedent. In general, the case is a fairly run of the mill fraud case. IANAL, but I don’t see much about the case that would be novel or precedent setting. Owen > On Jun 7, 2023, at 06:04, Douglas Haber via ARIN-PPML > wrote: > > As a follow up to some of

Re: [arin-ppml] Tenfold fee increases?

When John shut down Aron-discuss, he encouraged those of us who opposed its shutdown to migrate those discussions here. It is disingenuous at best to now call such a discussion inappropriate. Prior to that event, I would have agreed with you. However, in light of the historical context I think it

Re: [arin-ppml] Tenfold fee increases?

The good news is that when IPv4 finally goes away, so do the brokers and all of the other silliness paid transfers have brought with them. Owen > On Jun 1, 2023, at 16:51, Michael B. Williams via ARIN-PPML > wrote: > > Fees for IP Brokers should be 100,000 times more, in my opinion. > > The

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2023-1: Retire 4.2.1.4 Slow Start

I officially have no dog in this fight. IPv4 is done. It’s time to move on. Owen > On May 24, 2023, at 07:57, Hunter, Kathleen via ARIN-PPML > wrote: > > Matt- Just to clarify, the slow start policy was implemented when the wait > list did not exist. Slow start was to prevent large ISPs

Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Experience Report Working Group

> On May 7, 2023, at 07:08, William Herrin wrote: > > On Fri, May 5, 2023 at 5:32 PM Owen DeLong wrote: >> That isn’t a technical need for the addresses. > > Neither is registering addresses so you can lease them. A financial > need maybe, but not a technical one. > >> So as a matter of

Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Experience Report Working Group

That isn’t a technical need for the addresses. So as a matter of fact, it is prohibited by policy, not just convention. Owen > On May 5, 2023, at 15:37, William Herrin wrote: > > On Fri, May 5, 2023 at 2:30 PM Owen DeLong wrote: >> Nobody should have been denied addresses based on

Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Experience Report Working Group

> On May 5, 2023, at 13:45, William Herrin wrote: > > On Fri, May 5, 2023 at 12:54 PM Dustin Moses wrote: >> Also, I don’t see anywhere in the existing NRPM where an leasing is defined. >> If there was new policy added to address this related to waitlist Ips in >> section 4.1.8, leasing

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2022-12: Direct Assignment Language Update

This seems to ignore the fact that end-user organizations often manage their space and justify it in ways that aren’t really compatible with the way that LIR/ISP organizations do so. If you want to merge the terms allocation and assignment into allocation, fine, but please make sure to preserve

[arin-ppml] IPv6 Multiple Discrete Networks

I was reviewing 6.11 (because my organization is probably about to apply for some assignments under this clause), and I discovered an interesting oversight. It won’t affect our initial application, but 6.11.7 specifically lists utilization being judged against 6.5.2 and 6.5.3, but leaves out

  1   2   3   4   >