For one ARIN is technically out of IPv4.
2 - Every Upstream provider I have gotten bandwidth from requires us to use
"their" provided IP Block in front of our block. Albeit 1 or 2 usable IP's.
They also never let us pass through BGP announcing. They take our ASN BGP and
convert to their ASN BGP
Currently leasing is the only reliable way to get IPv4 since EXHAUSTION, in a
timely manner.
From: "Fernando Frediani"
To: "arin-ppml"
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2022 11:32:01 AM
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2022-9: Leasing Not Intended
Hello Scott
Could you explain be
ucture should probably be treated differently
than a single site with a single subnet.
Paul
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 2:05 PM David Farmer via ARIN-PPML <
arin-ppml@arin.net> wrote:
> Opposed as written.
>
> I agree; the new definition is less clear and way more abstract, in my
>
Go back and read John's comments again.
He did say heirs/successors had rights in probate.
I asked him to repeat that and he did.
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Andrews"
To: "Ted Mittelstaedt"
Cc: "arin-ppml"
Sent: Saturday, August 6, 2022 9:05:25 PM
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Deceased
If I understood what John clarified for me earlier in this thread ...
Many of the Legacy blocks will not be under NPRM and ARIN has to tread very
carefully on trying to claw these addresses back.
Many blocks that might be abandoned fall into legacy, especially /24's,
assigned pre-ARIN.
As always,
S ole proprietors can get resources but it is difficult and time consuming to
jump through ARIN hoops for us.
You still have to register with Secretary of State which Missouri did not do
for sole proprietors when I started my ARIN process.
However it became a little easier when we formed a LLC
John
If I remember correctly, you are about 56?
I only have 8 years on you :-)
- Original Message -
From: "William Herrin"
To: "John Curran"
Cc: "arin-ppml"
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2022 4:42:26 PM
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Deceased Companies?
On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 2:28 PM John Curran
Bill
You said what I tried to remember and say. :-)
You forget "Inside The Beltway" One could never win tortuous interference
lawsuit of this nature.
We do not speak their language which the Federal Courts also speak in the DC
Circuit. :-)
It is business as usual for them. :-(
They probably
onsider our worl perfect I guess John
From: "John Curran"
To: "pmcnary"
Cc: "arin-ppml"
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2022 3:07:43 PM
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Deceased Companies?
Paul -
I have no idea what "if I obtained a legacy IP block and tried to clean u
ject: Re: [arin-ppml] Deceased Companies?
Paul -
I have no idea what "if I obtained a legacy IP block and tried to clean up the
registration” even means?
If you obtain a legacy block via the transfer market, it will already have been
verified and cleaned up
by the seller as part of the tr
ed
is the single source of truth for what the community has agreed belongs
in the routing table.
But if I configure your number resources internally in my network, good
luck finding any judge that will rule that I have somehow stolen your
property by configuring a binary number in my network de
that will rule that I have somehow stolen your
property by configuring a binary number in my network devices.
Number resources are just integers, and nobody can lay claim of
property ownership on an integer.
End of story.
Matt
On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 12:20 PM Paul E McNary via ARIN-PPML
at ARIN is keeping updated
is the single source of truth for what the community has agreed belongs
in the routing table.
But if I configure your number resources internally in my network, good
luck finding any judge that will rule that I have somehow stolen your
property by configuring a bina
my network, good
luck finding any judge that will rule that I have somehow stolen your
property by configuring a binary number in my network devices.
Number resources are just integers, and nobody can lay claim of
property ownership on an integer.
End of story.
Matt
On Mon, Jul 25, 2
Also an individual LLC Limited Liability Company MUST use a fictitious name in
Missouri and
not it's federal business name. Ask me how I know. I went though this.
- Original Message -
From: "arin-ppml"
To: "Ronald F. Guilmette"
Cc: "arin-ppml"
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2022 2:45:00 PM
Su
Ronald
Here is a tidbit.
In Missouri an individual ie. sole proprietorship can form an LLC.
In Missouri LLC can also mean Limited Liability Companay.
In that instance your definition of LLC would be incorrect.
This type LLC falls under individual legal business model and not corporate as
you are i
panies?
On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 12:19 PM John Curran wrote:
> > On 25 Jul 2022, at 3:12 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 11:18 AM Paul E McNary wrote:
> >> Then why the threat?
> > In my opinion? ARIN has a legal house of cards built on the premise
&g
.
You asked him a specific question with a non-responsive answer as I always get
from him.
- Original Message -
From: "William Herrin"
To: "pmcnary"
Cc: "Fernando Frediani" , "arin-ppml"
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2022 2:12:39 PM
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Dec
ent: Monday, July 25, 2022 2:12:39 PM
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Deceased Companies?
On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 11:18 AM Paul E McNary wrote:
> Then why the threat?
Hi Paul,
In my opinion? ARIN has a legal house of cards built on the premise
that there are no property rights in IP addresses. It&#x
;William Herrin"
To: "pmcnary"
Cc: "Fernando Frediani" , "arin-ppml"
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2022 2:12:39 PM
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Deceased Companies?
On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 11:18 AM Paul E McNary wrote:
> Then why the threat?
Hi Paul,
In my opinion? ARIN
John Can you please speak Regular US English
I did not understand your staement at all :-(
- Original Message -
From: "John Curran"
To: "William Herrin"
Cc: "arin-ppml"
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2022 1:35:08 PM
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Deceased Companies?
> On 25 Jul 2022, at 2:09 PM, Wil
Bill
Then why the threat?
- Original Message -
From: "William Herrin"
To: "Fernando Frediani"
Cc: "arin-ppml"
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2022 1:09:47 PM
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Deceased Companies?
On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 8:02 AM Fernando Frediani wrote:
> Question here John: if the resou
ml"
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2022 11:46:31 AM
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Deceased Companies?
Paul -
That’s quite strange, since we’d already had estates probated with number
resources at that time.
Rights to number resources are not “freely held property” but rather similar to
any oth
It was you John Curran at WISPAMERICA when it was at Louisville I think.
So Legacy Resources or any Resources remain with the Estate, That is excellent
to know!
At the time your argument was that Number Resources were not property that
could be probated.
Your view was that Number Resources wer
I was told by John in person that heirs/successors had no legal rights to
legacy resources.
This was also repeated by ARIN staff at the time.
They would be automatically recovered on death.
- Original Message -
From: "Chris Woodfield"
To: "Ronald F. Guilmette" , "arin-ppml"
Sent: Mond
"voluntarily dissolved corporations"
This term has caused me much grief with ARIN.
I being a sole proprietorship had many issues and 2 years proving who I was to
get resources.
Amd it is almost impossible to get legacy resources transferred by ARIN if from
sole proprietorship.
It looks like sole
John you just did discuss the resource holder publicly in question. You stated
you reviewed the case in question. Go back and look at your own words.
You shared that they had been properly vetted with policy in place at the time,
did you not?
That is a public statement, is it not?
Your Inside
John
You keep using the word fraud.
This is not an issue of fraud by my understanding but ARIN POLICY.
Please correct your misuse of your language. PLEASE
- Original Message -
From: "John Curran"
To: "William Herrin"
Cc: "arin-ppml"
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2022 5:23:49 PM
Subject: Re:
- the Board will not be commenting on the list on your feedback
until the current election process comes closer to conclusion.
Cheers,
Paul
> On Oct 28, 2021, at 4:47 PM, Chris Woodfield wrote:
>
> First, I invite ARIN staff or Trustees to please advise if discussion of
>
that
the community focus its feedback and comments on constructive input. If any
community member has a specific account of bad faith to relay, please
communicate that directly to me and/or ARIN’s General Counsel.
Thank you,
Paul Andersen
Chair, ARIN Board of Tru
However I see policies getting made that cause a great conflict of Interest.
From: "John Curran"
To: "Owen DeLong"
Cc: "arin-ppml"
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2021 6:13:11 AM
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Proposal to ban Leasing of IP Addresses in the ARIN
region
Owen -
I do not deci
ARIN IPv4 is exhausted. Your statement makes no sense.
Paul
- Original Message -
From: "William Herrin"
To: "Paul E McNary"
Cc: "arin-ppml"
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 10:26:29 AM
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Remove Circuit Req
Then how do we get random /24's routed.
Since we have to justify for each /24 and usually if we need another /24 it
will be disaggregated.
I do not understand how any other way than for use to advertise it via bgp.
Paul
- Original Message -
From: "William Herrin"
Cc: &q
Where can we see the new fee schedule mainly for ISP's?
Thanks
Paul
From: "ARIN"
To: "arin-ppml"
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 10:06:24 AM
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2021-5: Update ISP and End User
References For 2022 Fee Schedule
On 16
the Beltway?
Paul
From: "arin-ppml"
To: "Martin Hannigan"
Cc: "arin-ppml"
Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2021 12:15:23 PM
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] {Spam?} Re: Open Letter Regarding 650% Rate-Hike for
Legacy Users
On Sep 19, 2021, at 06:32 , Ma
inute. Now under web apps 5 to 10 minutes
isn't uncommon for 1 fill.
same applies to The Internet.
Thanks for your comments|
Paul
From: "Martin Hannigan"
To: "Paul E McNary"
Cc: "arin-ppml"
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2021 12:59:18 PM
Subject: Re
That's the way it is here also and that covers most of the low density rural
areas and small towns and village in Missouri Statewide.
Paul
- Original Message -
From: "scott"
To: "Owen DeLong"
Cc: "arin-ppml"
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021
I think that should put to an all member vote on a matter like this.
They have so many damn mailings, it is done on purpose so that they can say it
was put out on this other mailing list.
Either that or campaign for new board members. And John just as well be
replaced also. He been there too lo
We never asked for a ticket.
All of you were telling me that if I submitted a ticket that the result might
be a claw back.
Our Company could not afford that risk.
Paul
- Original Message -
From: "John Curran"
To: "Paul E McNary"
Cc: "arin-ppml"
Sent: W
tlived his usefulness
Paul McNary
- Original Message -
From: "arin-ppml"
To: sc...@solarnetone.org
Cc: "arin-ppml"
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2021 11:44:09 AM
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Change of Use and ARIN (was: Re: AFRINIC And The
Stability Of The Internet Number Regis
Can I at least get my 1 Legacy /24 that my dear colleague/friend gave me
transferred to me with minimal documentation?
See you proved my point nobody works together inside the beltway.
Especially for some of us pioneers.
:-(
- Original Message -
From: hostmas...@uneedus.com
To: "P
to serve them
Owen you teflon-ed any responsibility because you are a volunteer. (no
responsibility)
New and improved
Simple and cheap
The facts are not on your side.
Thank for all your help ARIN (Much sarcasm if you couldn;t tell)
Paul McNary
- Original Message -
From: "Owen DeLo
dress these issues that you can't supply
resources to remote rural areas to SMB's.
I will assume no response from John with a solution he is slapping us as a fly
again
So I would say ARIN has cost us close to $750,000
Simple and cheap?
Paul McNary
pmcn...@cameron.net
----- Original M
ng about ARIN's bureaucratic shit to jump through.
That's how ARIN has helped our company.
Cheap and inexpensive hell no.
So please explain
Paul McNary
pmcn...@cameron.net
- Original Message -
From: "Dan Oachs"
To: "arin-ppml"
Sent: Tuesday, September
I must somewhat agree. Our fiber provide to our ISP just recently rolled out
ipv6 but not dual stack.
We have a great deal of problems routing to ipv6 hosts from our customers ipv6
ip addresses.
We have trouble with our Verizon phones on ipv6 getting to our routers.
People out in the country putt
This discussion has me so confused!
What is up, what is down, what is left, what is right.
I seem to be hearing, if you want this, you have to hold your mouth just right,
and then you can't do that.
None of this discussion has made any sense to me
Paul McNary
From: "O
the board? While it’s clear that all Board members would be aware of
> this, would they be encouraged to keep it in mind, or to explicitly put it
> aside, as part of each member’s individual decision-making criteria? (and if
> not, should they be?)
>
> Thanks,
>
> -C
>
process is
always enhanced by plentiful community input.
Cheers,
Paul
—
Paul Andersen, P. Eng
Chair, ARIN Board of Trustees
p...@arin.net
> On Jan 14, 2021, at 11:00 AM, Michael B. Williams
> wrote:
>
> Question for ARIN Employees/ others on PPLM -
>
> How does ARIN analyze
he AC on how to proceed.
In this case the Board reviewed the data provided and decided this was the
correct course of action.
I’m not sure I would agree with your characterization of “without a change in
the rules”.
Cheers,
Paul Andersen
Chair, ARIN Board
this seriously in the past and
give them serious deliberation. Look forward to seeing the discussion and input.
Cheers,
Paul
___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@a
board that is fully an
option; however, it may involve delaying resumption of the waiting list.
Cheers,
Paul
> On Jun 6, 2019, at 1:33 PM, Michael Williams via ARIN-PPML
> wrote:
>
> If the only choice is to not issue or issue /22, I suppose resuming.
>
> Sent from m
The notary point John raises is valid. ARIN does thoroughly vet transfers
that I have known about. After that it is a criminal act outside of
their action other
than testify and observe and file paperwork. They appear to have done
good work in the fraud
case.
On 5/18/2019 10:50 PM, John Curran
State and
get a new OrgID with ARIN. Still causes issues/
On 5/18/2019 10:26 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
In message <030cf8fa-201d-e8c7-a548-7cb3a7122...@cameron.net>,
Paul McNary wrote:
A Sole Proprietorship 1040 Schedule C does not have to be registered
with the State of Missouri
Ronald
A Sole Proprietorship 1040 Schedule C does not have to be registered
with the State of Missouri.
Your Social Security Number is all that is required.
Department of revenue issues you a number for Sales Tax and Withholding
Taxes.
The Feds give you a Withholding employer ID.
However you d
may not have been, and maybe we’ll say the
same in another 10.
Paul.
Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC d...@apnic.net
http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg
On 18 May 2019, at 3:49, David Farmer wrote:
Personally, I'm m
encouraged.
Cheers,
Paul
—
Paul Andersen
Chair, ARIN Board of Trustees
>>>>>
Open to the general public. Provides a forum to raise and discuss
policy-related ideas and issues surrounding existing and proposed ARIN
policies. The PPML list is an intrinsic part of ARIN’s Pol
rfg>1) I confess that I know virtually nothing about DNSSEC. I do
rfg>know one thing however, which is that there's such a thing,
rfg>in the world of domain names, as a "self signed" SSL
rfg>certificate.
DNSSEC follows a chain of trust from the root or trust anchor th
.
Cheers,
Paul
> On Oct 4, 2018, at 2:00 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>
>
>
>> 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
being called. In the case of 2017-5 the
shall/should discussion had ample discussion.
Paul
> On Oct 12, 2017, at 9:39 AM, Jason Schiller wrote:
>
> Can the PPM chair call separate questions?
>
___
PPML
You are receiving this message bec
Sorry I typed the numbers backwards, yes, that is what I meant. :-)
A /48 is smaller than a /47 and would not be required to be registered?
A /47 would need to be
On 8/17/2017 1:30 PM, Chris Woodfield wrote:
The opposite - a /47 is 2 /48s aggregated.
-C
On Aug 17, 2017, at 11:26 AM, Paul
A /47 is smaller than a /48 and would not be required to be registered?
On 8/17/2017 12:50 PM, hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote:
I note that any ISP size reassignment, with the recommended /48 for
each end user site, will be /47 or larger, which must always be
registered.
Thus, I think 6.5.5.5 l
Hello Owen
I think we are really almost in total agreement! :-)
I think we use words a little differently, but It think
we want a similar result. "Address Tracking" was not
on my concerns list except for possible CPNI violations
which I see a solution of how to handle this.
Take care
P
ve good. :-)
The world doesn't need to know my Access Points or neighborhood routers,
etc.
I think I need to get off my soapbox and take a nap now!
I know I ramble a lot, but getting too old to change much! :-)
Thanks
Take care
Paul
On 7/25/2017 5:17 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote:
If I, as an
Owen
Several weeks ago geolocation was one of the arguments for having
accurate whois in this thread.
This is no longer being argued?
Paul
On 7/25/2017 4:26 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Huh?
WHOIS is not a geolocation service and anyone who thinks it is should reduce
their use of recreational
ou believe to be
errant in nature, I’m happy to try and work with staff to make sure
they get clarified.
Owen
On Jul 24, 2017, at 12:01 , Paul McNary <mailto:pmcn...@cameron.net>> wrote:
https://www.arin.net/resources/request/reassignments.html
On 7/24/2017 1:28 PM, Owen DeLong wro
I agree with that!
Paul
On 7/24/2017 2:00 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
The current proposal language says:
/47 or shorter are SWIP’d in all cases.
/48 or longer are SWIP’d if they are independently announced.
Owen
On Jul 24, 2017, at 11:53 , Paul McNary wrote:
What does the
Then that totally negates the reasoning for geolocation.
The administrative address could be on the other side of the earth.
Paul
On 7/24/2017 1:31 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Jul 20, 2017, at 14:28 , hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote:
My transit bus example is another example of SWIP difficulty
https://www.arin.net/resources/request/reassignments.html
On 7/24/2017 1:28 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Jul 20, 2017, at 13:51 , Paul McNary <mailto:pmcn...@cameron.net>> wrote:
Owen
The reassignment policy page says IPv6 has to be done vi API.
Is that something else that is inc
What does the new language say?
I then am totally confused as I am with the rest of the NPRM!
So many contradictions using Missouri English.
Paul
On 7/24/2017 1:22 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
That’s not what the new language actually says.
Owen
On Jul 20, 2017, at 13:26 , Paul McNary wrote
+1
On 7/21/2017 12:34 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote:
This looks good: I support.
For clarity, so we don't all have to do it, and to help make sure
we're not missing anything, here's what the resulting 6.5.5 looks like
after modification:
6.5.5. Registration
ISPs are required to demonstrate eff
d one wasn't, but we
basically had to shift all customers to NAT since we didn't make it in time
to get our own IPv4 allocation. Getting an IPv6 allocation is waiting on
our fiber
provider providing dual stack and the issues you are some what addressing
in this current policy making.
Thanks
P
Owen
The reassignment policy page says IPv6 has to be done vi API.
Is that something else that is incorrect on the web site?
Paul
On 7/20/2017 3:16 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
How can it be overly difficult to fill out an email template with your
customers’
Name, Address, Phone Number?
Really
Yes
/48 is the SWIP boundary. /48 is SWIP'ed.
/49 is not.
Paul
On 7/20/2017 3:07 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
My recommendation was “shorter than /48” which would essentially mean the same
thing.
Owen
On Jul 17, 2017, at 15:46 , hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote:
The language of "b)
e can accommodate.
Take care
Paul
On 7/20/2017 3:06 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
This makes the best case I can imagine for why setting the boundary at
/56 is a bad idea and we should not be considering anything longer
than /48.
Owen
On Jul 17, 2017, at 15:40 , Paul McNary <mailto:pmcn...@cameron.net
+1
That is what I agree with.
However reading the ARIN reassignment web page they are showing
policy that /60 should be SWIP'ed on IPv6 and /29 on IPv4.
Thanks you
Paul
On 7/17/2017 5:46 PM, hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote:
The language of "b)" actually makes more sense with a /4
32.
I think that has finally changed.
However ARIN's assignment web page indicates we should be
SWIP'ing /29's on IPv4 by policy or risk ARIN action.
Thank you
Paul McNary
pmcn...@cameron.net
On 7/17/2017 5:09 PM, Leif Sawyer wrote:
Shepherd of the draft policy chiming in.
Thanks f
Tony
If BCP (Best Current Practices) = BGP I would agree that IP's that are
BGP routable should be the proper place
to place the SWIP requirement. Anything not BGP routable should be
considered local routed. That is my
current idea of what would work.
Paul
On 7/17/2017 4:25 PM, Tony
Tony
Do you mean BGP instead of BCP. I agree that IP's that are BGP routable
should be the proper place
to place the SWIP requirement. Anything not BGP routable should be
considered local routed.
Paul
On 7/17/2017 4:25 PM, Tony Hain wrote:
John,
I think we are in violent agreement
The way I understand, SWIP can be voluntary but with consequences at
ARIN if we don't.
Am I hearing wrong?
Take care
Paul
pmcn...@cameron.net
On 7/17/2017 2:11 PM, David R Huberman wrote:
Can you define voluntary?
Is the voluntary choice to record a reassignment
up to the USP?
Or
have always had trouble with your comments John, you
are constantly making "veil" threats about our ability to receive ARIN
resources.
Then your staff says to ignore your "veil" threats.
Paul McNary
pmcn...@cameron.net
On 7/17/2017 1:33 PM, Jason Schiller wrote:
David,
Can you
rivacy for Internet users.
I guess we could SWIP the IP but put in Customer one and our
POC information.
I am sure Steve can tell page and verse about this.
Thanks you
Take care
Paul McNary
McNary Computer Service
pmcn...@cameron.net
On 7/16/2017 9:38 PM, John Curran wrote:
On 16 Jul 2017, at 8:4
we are still required to follow the
Internet policy rule making.
Thank you
Take care
Paul McNary
McNary Computer Services
pmcn...@cameron.net
On 7/15/2017 8:18 PM, hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote:
Harvesting of customer data is something that has not really been
addressed in the ARIN region, because
provide /56 to end users, then I will rethink my thought process.
Anything smaller than
a minimum ARIN allocation, should not have to be swip'ed or under their
control.
Am I not understanding this correctly?
Thank you
Paul McNary
McNary Computer Services
pmcn...@cameron.net
On 7/15/2
t way. Every had a /25 that the other
associated /25 had spammers on it?
Lots of fun! :-)
Now if the blacklist characters would work with the smaller IP ranges
that would be great, but will they?
Paul McNary
pmcn...@cameron.net
On 6/6/2017 3:10 PM, Roberts, Orin wrote:
/“Since we require
However I was told by ARIN, a small ISP like me they could claw back any
Legacy resources
I acquired outside of the ARIN system. The big guys aren't intimidated
by this but we are.
The money required to even acquire 1 /24 is now big time. And lack of a
direct allocation
of IPv6 for $500 is a ma
de IPv6 to our
rural area.
Please help me understand the bureaucracy that ARIN is?
Thanks
Paul McNary
McNary Computer Services
On 2/18/2016 10:50 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
So, you are saying that you need addresses, but can't justify it? I keep
hearing the argument and it makes no sense.
What is the status of a $500 ISP allotment of IPv6?
John said soon at WISPAlooza.
Thanks
Paul McNary
On 11/24/2015 2:52 PM, ARIN wrote:
In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP), the ARIN
Advisory Council (AC) met on 19 November 2015.
The AC recommended the following to the
+1 What Mike is saying!
On 8/14/2015 7:03 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
*nods* I think a lot of times people forget about the little ISP that
only has a /23 of IPv4. Heck, I know one guy that owns at least a half
dozen ISPs, none of them more than 1k customers, most under 300. I
think people get ca
We are an ISP.
Will 4 different non-contiguous blocks be counted as 1 or 4 blocks for fees.
Or is the block count the total of all combined /24's that we would get
allocated?
So a /22 (or 4 /24's) plus a /40 plus ASN for an ISP would be $500
annually?
Thanks
On 8/11/2015 11:22 PM, Jason Sc
each /24 block allocated
even though nothing larger is available? Can we get an IPv6 allocation
large enough when we file for AS number
for a several month cross over from microwave to fiber?
Thank you
Paul McNary
Internet Associates
On 8/11/2015 9:29 PM, j...@rowenetworks.com wrote:
I hear the Supreme Court just ruled IPv6 legal in all states...
What does this mean for the backward people who have been steadily
resisting deploying the current version of the Internet Protocol?
Drive Slow,
Paul
___
PPML
You are receiving this
+1, I agree completely.
On 9/4/2014 午前 02:29, Seth Mattinen wrote:
On 7/23/14, 7:58, 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:
ht
Err so,
what are you actually proposing?
On 5/18/2014 ?? 10:41, Meows wrote:
Hundreds of thousands of us worked with groups like Demand Progress,
CREDO and Free Press, flooding the FCC with so many calls that they
had to literally turn their phones off.
*That still wasn't enough to stop Ch
Not seeing anything I disagree with in the PDF, so just as I supported
the original, I support this too.
On 5/6/2014 7:44 AM, Kevin Blumberg wrote:
I'm sending out a revised version of prop-208. Included is an attachment with a
redline version to assist.
I would appreciate any feedback of su
If this was actually drafted, I would too.
Doesn't seem like a bad thing.
On 5/1/2014 午後 03:19, Owen DeLong wrote:
I would support.
Owen
On Apr 30, 2014, at 7:49 AM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
Friends, Colleagues,
A couple of years ago I brought up an issue I had run into where the
utilization r
Jeffrey,
While the idea is great, isn't ARIN supposed to already be implementing
this in one way?
i.e: You get one allocation, and until you can show 80% usage --
applying again generally does not get you anywhere.
Going by this, shouldn't all previous allocs ("aggregated / per
organizatio
Support as well.
Paul Emmons
From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On
Behalf Of Owen DeLong
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 12:59 PM
To: pol...@arin.net; ARIN PPML (p...@arin.net)
Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Reduce all Minimum
Allocation/Assignment
t are the right
actions to resolve those.
I continue to watch the mailing list thread with interest. Thanks to all who
have provided constructive input to the committee and of course welcome further
feedback either directly or to the mailing list.
Hope that helps...
Cheers,
Paul
Chair, ARI
Customers.
On Tuesday, March 4, 2014, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
> Money comes from somewhere, right?
> On Mar 4, 2014 10:56 PM, "Martin Hannigan"
> >
> wrote:
>
>> What does private equity and M&A have to do with longer or shorter prefix
>> value?
>>
>> There's a market for all lengths/sizes. Clearly
Owen DeLong wrote:
> ...
>
> If I were the allegedly acquired party and ARIN transferred my resources
> based solely on
> the statement of some $LARGE_CONVICTED_FELON_SOFTWARE_HOUSE officer, I’d be
> very upset if I hadn’t actually been acquired.
>
> I’m not saying that your company was attempti
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
