Hi Bill,
Sorry for not answering in order.
On Tue, 29 Apr 2014, Bill Darte wrote:
Hi John,
Couple of questions. could the solution for staff effort be solved more
directly by modifying the protocol that establishes team
testing for each and every request through exhaustion? I wonder abou
Hi Bill and John,
Thank you for the thoughtful responses. As a purely process note, please
allow me to point out that what we have here, ARIN-prop-204, is merely a
policy proposal. I will do my best to answer comments and questions posed
inline, but they appear to relate to later steps in the
Not in favor. Post exhaustion perhaps.
On Tuesday, April 29, 2014, John Springer wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> The following timely policy proposal is presented for your consideration,
> discussion and comment. Will you please comment?
>
> As always, expressions of support or opposition (and their reas
How would we go about assessing whether such changes prove harmful or
helpful? What metrics does ARIN collect under this policy which can be
analyzed and presented here so we can consider expanding it to larger
transfers? Does no justification mean no documentation?
What makes you think /16 is
Marty,
Are you suggesting the whole idea of removing needs testing from small
IPv4 transfers would be a massive abuse vector? Or;
Do you mean only John's suggestion of a presumption of good faith for
small allocations would be a massive abuse vector?
Thanks.
On 4/30/14, 17:19 , Martin Han
John -
If you apply for number resources today and make fraudulent statements
to support your request, the resources obtained are subject to reclamation.
Generally, this is when supporting material/representations were later found
to be factually incorrect.
If ARIN were to simpl
It'll be a massive abuse vector.
Best,
Martin
On Wednesday, April 30, 2014, John Santos wrote:
>
> I agree with Bill. It might be appropriate to drop needs testing for
> small allocations simply because it is not worth the effort, but I don't
> see a /16 as being small. Something in the rang
On 14-04-30 03:04 PM, John Santos wrote:
Another idea to ponder would be instead of dropping the need requirement,
we adopt a presumption of good faith for small allocations. ARIN would
simply take the word of the requester or recipient for small allocations
or transfers, but if it was later dis
I agree with Bill. It might be appropriate to drop needs testing for
small allocations simply because it is not worth the effort, but I don't
see a /16 as being small. Something in the range of /24 to /20 would
be better.
Another idea to ponder would be instead of dropping the need requirement,
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 1:35 AM, John Springer wrote:
> ARIN-prop-204 Removing Needs Test from Small IPv4 Transfers
>
> Policy statement:
> Change the language in NRPM 8.3 after Conditions on the recipient of the
> transfer: from "The recipient must demonstrate the need for up to a 24-month
> supp
On 14-04-29 10:28 AM, David Huberman wrote:
When I studied it for ARIN, 87% of the v4 address space ARIN issued over
a 2 year period went to ELEVEN companies.
I’m not speaking directly to prop 204, but in general: policy has
favored big guys at the gross expense of small guys for 15 years. It’
/OPS Program Manager (GFS)
From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf
Of Owen DeLong
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 10:15 AM
To: TheIpv6guy .
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-204 Removing Needs Test from Small IPv4
Transfers (fwd)
In
In general, I think removing needs basis is an utterly bad idea.
However, if we were to do a 1 year trial at /20, to gather data and evaluate
the actual impacts of such a policy, I would consider that acceptable.
+ Does it actually lead to increased whois accuracy as proclaimed
by
Opp
On Apr 28, 2014 10:35 PM, "John Springer" wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> The following timely policy proposal is presented for your consideration,
discussion and comment. Will you please comment?
>
> As always, expressions of support or opposition (and their reasons) are
given slightly more weight tha
t: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-204 Removing Needs Test from Small IPv4
Transfers (fwd)
Hi John,
Couple of questions. could the solution for staff effort be solved more
directly by modifying the protocol that establishes team testing for each and
every request through exhaustion? I wonder
Hi John,
Couple of questions. could the solution for staff effort be solved more
directly by modifying the protocol that establishes team testing for each
and every request through exhaustion? I wonder about the need for these
extraordinary measures.
Is /16 small? Did you consider a differe
Hi All,
The following timely policy proposal is presented for your consideration,
discussion and comment. Will you please comment?
As always, expressions of support or opposition (and their reasons) are given
slightly more weight than reasons why you might be in neither condition.
John Spri
17 matches
Mail list logo
