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

I really don’t care about Capitalization or not… I’ll leave that to the lawyers and grammarians. Owen > On Dec 18, 2023, at 13:15, Matthew Wilder wrote: > > Hi Owen, > > Thank you for the initial feedback. > > Do you have any feedback regarding the suggestion to capitalize the term > "Com

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 14:52, John Curran wrote: > > > >> On Dec 13, 2023, at 5:09 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >>> A Local Internet Registry (LIR) is an IR that primarily assigns IP >>> addresses to the users _of the network services_ that it provides. LIRs are >>> generally Internet Service

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

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 LIRs. LIRs include cloud providers, CDNs, certain government entities, colocation facilities, “eyeball” providers, backbone providers, tunne

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

Dale W. Carder > Cc: Christian Tacit , arin-ppml@arin.net > > Subject: 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

Re: [arin-ppml] Section 6.3 Possible Retirement (NRPM Working Group engagement)

Personally, of the two, I’d prefer to retire 6.1 rather than 6.3. However, I think both still have useful content and context. Owen > On Nov 27, 2023, at 10:47, Matthew Wilder via ARIN-PPML > wrote: > > Hi PPML subscribers, > > As a continuation of the series of discussions from the NRPM wo

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

The problem I have with this line of thinking is that in reality, IXPs are the place with the least need for an IPv4 prefix. It’s dirt simple to pass along IPv4 NLRI over an IPv6 peering session these days, even if you’re not doing IPv6 anywhere else in your network. The only real consequence o

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2023-8: Reduce 4.18 maximum allocation

Whatever we do with IPv4 will be painful to some group. Correct answer: IPv6. In the mean time, I guess do whatever you want with the deck chairs, but try to avoid drowning the band. Owen > On Nov 21, 2023, at 09:35, ARIN wrote: > > On 16 November 2023, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accept

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

> Draft Policies: > > * ARIN-2023-2: /26 initial IPv4 allocation for IXPs I strongly encourage the abandonment of this proposal. It is a solution looking for a problem and almost every major exchange operator and many minor ones has come out in opposition both here and in other regions where

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

> On Nov 20, 2023, at 12:59, Christian Tacit wrote: > > Dear ARIN Community Members, > > In our continuing effort to simplify the NRPM, we are also considering the > retirement of sections 6.4.1 and 6.4.2. > > We believe that section 6.4.1 is out of scope since it constitutes a legal > co

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

> On Nov 17, 2023, at 06:22, Dale W. Carder wrote: > > Thus spake Matthew Wilder via ARIN-PPML (arin-ppml@arin.net > ) on Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 05:15:47PM -0800: >> Hello ARIN community members, >> >> I just want to remind you that we as a working group value your fe

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

Agreed, that change makes sense to me. Owen > On Nov 17, 2023, at 06:01, Matt Erculiani wrote: > > Christian/Matthew, > > I think a little background never hurt anyone. It's also not at the expense > of a significant amount of real estate. > > I would, however, remove "Policies described in