“However, the implementation of such a restriction could prove problematic;
What is a true newcomer? How do we prevent gaming of this restriction?”
And whose responsibility will it be to police this proposed policy change? With
regards to gaming the system, because it will happen.
I think the
I agree; Bill' simplified text is best - , "Only organizations holding 4096 or
fewer of IPv4 addresses may apply and be approved".
Since "holding a /20 or less of IPv4 address " can be interpreted as /19,
/18.. (greater quantities of ipv4 addresses).
Orin Roberts - Bell Canada
-O
Well said Albert, I agree with this viewpoint, IPv6 was meant to solve the
existing IPv4 operational issues; I see this policy proposal as extending them.
Orin Roberts - Bell Canada
-Original Message-
From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of hostmas...@uneedus.com
Sent: July-18-19 1:36 PM
To:
IE ARIN would be a competitor in a marketplace for which it holds a monopoly.
Orin Roberts
IP PROVISIONING
Bell Canada
-Original Message-
From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of hostmas...@uneedus.com
Sent: June-20-19 12:57 PM
To: ARIN-PPML List
Subject: [EXT]Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2019-7: Elim
Opposed! “ARIN participating in the market seems distasteful and counter to
its overall mission”.
I would advocate a policy placing those resources for distribution under
Section 4.4 (Micro Allocations ie /24) and 4.10 ( IPv4 block facilitate to IPv6
deployment).
Orin Roberts
IP PROVIS
That is great news. Thanks for the update.
~Orin
From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of Mike Burns
Sent: May-14-19 11:10 AM
To: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: [EXT][arin-ppml] Of interest?
I found this to be an interesting article and perhaps others on the list would
appreciate knowing about it.
https:/
Opposed - the simple view.
Why is the need for an IPv6 "Inter-regional" policy justifiable?
IPv6 addresses are/were meant to be used in global architecture by design; I
remember an early selling feature being the scope for inter-planetary expansion.
Therefore, the five RIR's should only have pol
“The waiting list does work pretty well. Let's cut down on the abuse with a
minimal change in policy as in option 1 above.”
I see three reasons why Option#1 is the best proposal so far:
1- Fraud reduction, not necessarily elimination. There is nothing wrong
with a review after implementa
a
detailed reassignment record is not required for most reassignments.
Andrew
On 1/25/2019 12:00 PM, Roberts, Orin wrote:
Please clarify.
This proposal is making lines 7 to 12 on the template optional/obsolete for all
Simple Reassignment SWIPs?
https://www.arin.net/resources/request
Please clarify.
This proposal is making lines 7 to 12 on the template optional/obsolete for all
Simple Reassignment SWIPs?
https://www.arin.net/resources/request/reassignments.html
Template: ARIN-REASSIGN-SIMPLE-5.1
** As of April 2018
** Detailed instructions are located below the template
I am assuming Ronald is aware of this.
https://www.arin.net/knowledge/rirs/ARINcountries.html
ARIN's geographical service area includes all of the countries in the list
below.
Complete List of Countries in the ARIN Region
Canada Sector A 2 A 3 Region
CANADA CA CAN ARIN
Carib
In my opinion, the organisation that holds the parent block is still the
responsible party.
In any case, ARIN considers its members to be organisations and not individuals.
i.e. students, employees, guests wouldn’t fit that criteria.
By its very nature, hotspots do not track the end-users and VPN
Thank you for the explanations Albert & David - those certainly helped to
clarify my understanding of the proposal.
"ARIN's current inter-RIR transfer policy is IPv4 only, the intent of this
proposal is to add ASNs. The current policy for within the ARIN region allows
both ipv4 and ASNs."
I a
You could, but then IPv6 routing/fragmentation becomes an issue.
Unless when an ASN is transferred from ARIN all IP networks associated to that
ASN are revoked/removed/deleted from ARIN.
ie. I can acquire an ASN that currently exists at ARIN minus any associated IP
networks, move it to APNIC/RIP
Question
Has any other registry already adopted or implemented such a policy -
Inter-regional ASN Transfers?
Orin Roberts
-Original Message-
From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of Job Snijders
Sent: February-01-18 12:40 PM
To: hostmas...@uneedus.com
Cc: arin-pp
I see obstacles but increased fees would lead to greater efficiency in IPv4
assignments and usage or at the very least aid in the migration to IPv6.
A. Charging a monthly fee (or higher monthly fee), means increased costs
to end-users for whatever services said company provides.
B. I
I also support this draft policy as written, no more jumping to the front of
the queue. Go IPv6.
Orin Roberts
From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of Brian Jones
Sent: November-22-17 9:31 AM
To: ARIN
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-201
These are my sentiments also>>>
"I am not convinced that it should be ARIN's role to correct perceived global
RIR framework imbalances.
We currently have a working policy strategy in this area, and I think we should
stick with it for now."
Orin Roberts
--
On the contrary, it questions the validity and purpose of a swip.
Why is a SWIP necessary for IPv6? When is it necessary? And is necessity
dependent on network/allocation size? All questions others have asked.
For all direct allocations , there are several POC's and an Organisation Name &
Addres
Ref: Geolocation and SWIPs
I have seen SWIPs with GPS coordinates similar to the bus example; wifi/camera
in remote park.
“A bus would be SWIPd to the bus yard or administrative offices of the bus
company. The SWIP data is not required to be the service address, it is
required to be an address
“Since we require SWIP for IPv4 /24s”
ARIN also currently requires a SWIP for an IPv4 /29 , which makes “/60" a more
applicable reference point; unless the intent is to minimize or eliminate SWIPs
for IPv6 (ISPs won’t mind).
Orin
From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf
Hello all,
I am avidly following this discussion and based on my daily observances (daily
swips /subnets ), I would say Andy is closest to being practical.
Leave the IPv4 /29 requirements alone, THIS LIMIT IS ALREADY BEING PUSHED AT
DAILY BY NON-RESIDENTIAL USERS and only the vague ARIN policy
Agreed it's a step in the right direction.
Specific to ISP's; I've noted Letters of Authorizations (LOA's) being common,
where one organization uses the resources of another - no change to ARIN
databases.
Orin Roberts - CCNA,ITILv3
-Original Message-
From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml
Really, this is why ARIN wants to rewrite a policy???
> that POC validation to reassignments
> causes tremendous work for the staff. It receives many angry phone
> calls and emails about the POC validation process.
This discussion should be focused on how to legally enforce indirect POC
valid
24 matches
Mail list logo
