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
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
aul
On 7/26/2017 1:13 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Jul 25, 2017, at 15:46, Paul McNary <mailto:pmcn...@cameron.net>> wrote:
Let me change "geolocation" to "address tracking".
For instance, Netflix blocks a certain region and whois is showing
customer
in that regi
of data on where an address is used. If I have other info
that contradicts the whois information, I'd probably just ignore the
whois data and go with the facts on the ground.
-Scott
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Paul McNary <mailto:pmcn...@cameron.net>> wrote:
Owen
pharmaceuticals.
Owen
On Jul 24, 2017, at 12:03 , Paul McNary wrote:
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
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
platforms spanning tens of thousands of instances across these dynamic
ranges.
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Paul McNary wrote:
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
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)" actually makes
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 /47:
Each static
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 Hain wr
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 here, ot
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 does th
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
28 matches
Mail list logo
