On Jun 20, 2013, at 11:46 AM, John Curran
wrote:
> On Jun 20, 2013, at 11:06 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Jason Schiller
>> wrote:
>>> 2. In the case of the latter, they have already exceeded their
>>> legacy address holdings, and have had to return to AR
On Jun 20, 2013, at 11:06 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Jason Schiller wrote:
>> 2. In the case of the latter, they have already exceeded their
>> legacy address holdings, and have had to return to ARIN
>> for additional address space. Since that time they have h
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Jason Schiller wrote:
> 2. In the case of the latter, they have already exceeded their
> legacy address holdings, and have had to return to ARIN
> for additional address space. Since that time they have had
> to demonstrate efficient use of all of their address s
In this discussion about "large ISPs", it is important to separate
organizations into two categories:
1. Those that hold only legacy address space
2. Those that may (or may not) hold legacy address space, and
also a direct allocation / assignment from ARIN.
1. In the case of the former it is
On Jun 19, 2013, at 4:04 PM, "Mike Burns" wrote:
> You began this discussion some time ago with a policy proposal which
> attempted to remove needs basis, was soundly rejected by the community, and
> which you backed off to the same compromise you are again proposing now. The
> community didn
On Jun 19, 2013, at 3:25 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Jun 18, 2013, at 7:14 PM, Mike Burns wrote:
>>> 1. It has been argued that the larger ISPs have the prior advantage of
>>> holding highly valuable alienable assets which they received
You began this discussion some time ago with a policy proposal which attempted
to remove needs basis, was soundly rejected by the community, and which you
backed off to the same compromise you are again proposing now. The community
didn't want any part of it back then. At the time, there was no
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Jun 18, 2013, at 7:14 PM, Mike Burns wrote:
>> 1. It has been argued that the larger ISPs have the prior advantage of
>> holding highly valuable alienable assets which they received for free, which
>> provide them with a competitive advanta
On Jun 18, 2013, at 4:16 PM, Mike Burns
mailto:m...@nationwideinc.com>> wrote:
You have agreed in the past that it is possible to advertise addresses for
which the name in Whois does not match the name of the advertiser.
The determination of appropriate verification of registration (for IP addr
On Jun 19, 2013, at 2:18 AM, George Herbert wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Jun 18, 2013, at 7:14 PM, Mike Burns wrote:
>
>> Hi Jason,
>>
>> 1. It has been argued that the larger ISPs have the prior advantage of
>> holding highly valuable alien
On Jun 18, 2013, at 11:16 PM, "Mike Burns" wrote:
> Hi Owen,
>
> As for examples of Whois inaccuracy, how exactly would they be substantiated?
> I can tell you that I am aware of several transactions which have occurred in
> this manner, but I am not able to divulge the participants.
If you
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Jun 18, 2013, at 7:14 PM, Mike Burns wrote:
>
>Hi Jason,
>
> 1. It has been argued that the larger ISPs have the prior advantage of
> holding highly valuable alienable assets which they received for free,
> which provide them with a
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] A Redefinition of IPv4 Need post
ARINrun-out(was:Re:Against2013-4)
On Jun 18, 2013, at 7:14 PM, Mike Burns wrote:
Hi Jason,
1. It has been argued that the larger ISPs have the prior advantage of
holding highly valuable alienable assets which they received for fr
On Jun 18, 2013, at 7:14 PM, Mike Burns wrote:
> Hi Jason,
>
> 1. It has been argued that the larger ISPs have the prior advantage of
> holding highly valuable alienable assets which they received for free, which
> provide them with a competitive advantage over less endowed entities seeking
On Thu, 13 Jun 2013, Jason Schiller wrote:
This is an unfair burden to organizations who require lots of address
space for growth.
I lack sympathy for large organizations. I've worked extensively both
with the very large and very, very small.
The large can easily afford to dedicate a resou
reak
point for a lot of the responders on this list. My hope is that ardent
networkers will push toward IPv6 instead of clinging to legacy addressing.
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Brian Jones
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 13, 2013 9:30 AM
> *To:* Mike Burns
nd to affect IPv4 prices negatively.
Who would speculate under these conditions?
What if we limited his total purchases to a /12, or his aggregate holdings to
a /12, otherwise he would be needs-tested?
Regards,
Mike
From: Brian Jones
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 9:30 AM
rian Jones
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 13, 2013 9:30 AM
> *To:* Mike Burns
> *Cc:* Mike Burns ; arin-ppml@arin.net
> *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] A Redefinition of IPv4 Need post
> ARINrun-out(was:Re:Against2013-4)
>
> Mike,
> See inline comments.
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10
Redefinition of IPv4 Need post
ARINrun-out(was:Re:Against2013-4)
Mike,
See inline comments.
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:05 PM, Mike Burns wrote:
Hi Brian,
I understand that there is a danger of overpurchasing (by whomever's
definition) that comes from the removal of a needs test for tran
19 matches
Mail list logo
