Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-14, was Internet Fairness

On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 8:03 PM, Andrew Dul wrote: > I'm not in favor of linking the fee categories to number policy. The fees > and its categories are under the control of the board; number policy is > under control of the Internet community via the PDP. I believe the board's > actions, to adju

Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-14, was Internet Fairness

Andrew Dul writes: > I'm not in favor of linking the fee categories to number policy.  > The fees and its categories are under the control of the board; > number policy is under control of the Internet community via the > PDP.  I believe the board's actions, to adjust fees, should not > cause ch

Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-14, was Internet Fairness

On 12/26/2014 4:33 PM, Matthew Petach wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 3:01 PM, John Springer > wrote: > > Hi John, > > Thank you for the clear statement of opposition. Please allow me > to address the points you offer inline. > > On Wed, 24 Dec 2

Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-14, was Internet Fairness

On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 3:01 PM, John Springer wrote: > Hi John, > > Thank you for the clear statement of opposition. Please allow me to > address the points you offer inline. > > On Wed, 24 Dec 2014, John Santos wrote: > > >> Oppose 2014-14 >> >> 1) /16 is not "small" >> > > This has actually be

Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-14, was Internet Fairness

>> 2) The problem the proposal purports to solve hasn't actually been >> demonstrated. "ARIN staff [...] is spending scarce staff time on needs >> testing of small transfers." > > You pose an interesting procedural question. In our considerations of > advancing prop-204 to Draft Policy, the ques

Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-14, was Internet Fairness

Hi John, Thank you for the clear statement of opposition. Please allow me to address the points you offer inline. On Wed, 24 Dec 2014, John Santos wrote: Oppose 2014-14 1) /16 is not "small" This has actually been mentioned before, by several commentators. The problem with "big" and "no

Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-14, was Internet Fairness

On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 9:37 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > I don't think you're getting the concept of small, Bill. Take a look at > the statistics that were gathered about what proportion of the number > space a number of /18s and below would consist of. It's less than > 10% of the overall transf

Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-14, was Internet Fairness

for more intensive use. --MM > -Original Message- > From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] > On Behalf Of William Herrin > Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2014 12:25 PM > To: John Santos > Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2

Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-14, was Internet Fairness

I oppose the proposed policy as currently drafted. The notion of a /16 being "small" is ludicrous. By the time you need a /16, you have enough staff to handle tracking your SWIP/rwhois data for your customers, and justifying needs is just part and parcel of running your business. I would support a

Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-14, was Internet Fairness

On 12/24/14 9:24, William Herrin wrote: I ran a regional ISP on two /18's. You're not getting the concept of "small." I get it. I just don't agree. ~Seth ___ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Ma

Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-14, was Internet Fairness

I could be on board with such changes. Specifically making the size much smaller (I think /22 would be reasonable) and particularly the limit on untested transfers. (1 per year maybe?) As Bill points out, we can always modify it in the future. It would be fairly trivial and straightforward to

Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-14, was Internet Fairness

On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 1:00 AM, John Santos wrote: > Oppose 2014-14 > > 1) /16 is not "small" This is the main problem I have with 2014-14. Start with /24's or maybe /22's and keep track of what happens to them. Then use the knowledge gained to formulate a better policy when expanding the proces

Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-14, was Internet Fairness

On 12/23/14 22:00, John Santos wrote: 1) /16 is not "small" Then make it /18 to align with the fee schedule definition of "small". ~Seth ___ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-

Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-14, was Internet Fairness

I also oppose. John Santos sums up the big points with which I agree: - On Dec 24, 2014, at 1:00 AM, John Santos j...@egh.com wrote: > Oppose 2014-14 > > 1) /16 is not "small" Agreed. Even by ARIN definition it is "medium" :-) > 2) The problem the proposal purports to solve hasn't actuall

Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-14, was Internet Fairness

Oppose 2014-14 1) /16 is not "small" 2) The problem the proposal purports to solve hasn't actually been demonstrated. "ARIN staff [...] is spending scarce staff time on needs testing of small transfers." Obviously, doing the necessary checking requires staff time, but is it a significa

[arin-ppml] 2014-14, was Internet Fairness

Hi PPML and Randy and Steven, Subject change and sorry for the top post. WRT ARIN Draft Policy 2014-14, Removing Needs Test from Small IPv4 Transfers, this started out as "ARIN-prop-204 Removing Needs Test from Small IPv4 Transfers on 16 April 2014. At the 15 May 2014 ARIN AC teleconference,