On Sep 3, 2014, at 1:09 AM, Derek Calanchini wrote:
> John,
>
> That is GREAT NEWS! Given that, there will be no need to fudge...When I say
> fudge, I manage my IP's very tightly right now...I have been using the same 4
> class c's for almost 15 years. I could easily, legitimately justify a /
John,
That is GREAT NEWS! Given that, there will be no need to
fudge...When I say fudge, I manage my IP's very tightly right
now...I have been using the same 4 class c's for almost 15 years.
I could easily, legitimately justify a /21 by switching to a
On Sep 2, 2014, at 11:16 PM, Derek Calanchini wrote:
> Sorry, I replied to the wrong one, this is the one I am waiting on:
>
> ARIN-prop-208 Reduce All Minimum Allocation/Assignment Units to /24
Much clearer now... Policy ARIN-2014-13: "Reduce All Minimum
Allocation/Assignment Units to /24"
Sorry, I replied to the wrong one, this
is the one I am waiting on:
ARIN-prop-208 Reduce All Minimum Allocation/Assignment Units to
/24
Best regards,
Derek Calanchini
Owner
I support this.
From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf
Of Kelly Hays
Sent: Friday, May 9, 2014 1:20 PM
To: Kevin Blumberg
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net List (arin-ppml@arin.net)
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-208 Reduce All Minimum Allocation/Assignment
Units
I support this.
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 8:44 PM, Kevin Blumberg wrote:
> I'm sending out a revised version of prop-208. Included is an attachment
> with a redline version to assist.
>
> I would appreciate any feedback of support or questions.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Kevin Blumberg
>
> ARIN-prop-208 Redu
+1 Support
On 14-05-05 06:44 PM, Kevin Blumberg wrote:
I'm sending out a revised version of prop-208. Included is an attachment with a
redline version to assist.
I would appreciate any feedback of support or questions.
Thanks,
Kevin Blumberg
ARIN-prop-208 Reduce All Minimum Allocation/Assig
@arin.net List (arin-ppml@arin.net)
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-208 Reduce All Minimum
Allocation/Assignment Units to /24
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 9:44 PM, Kevin Blumberg wrote:
I'm sending out a revised version of prop-208. Included is an attachment
with a redline version to assist
On May 5, 2014, at 23:49 , William Herrin wrote:
> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 2:10 AM, Kevin Blumberg wrote:
>> Do you support the substantive changes in this policy?
>
> I support Owen's original policy with the minor tweaks to deal with
> the couple of things he missed.
>
> I do not support the
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 2:10 AM, Kevin Blumberg wrote:
> Do you support the substantive changes in this policy?
I support Owen's original policy with the minor tweaks to deal with
the couple of things he missed.
I do not support the policy as rewritten. The rewrite is, I believe,
egregious and ha
Not seeing anything I disagree with in the PDF, so just as I supported
the original, I support this too.
On 5/6/2014 7:44 AM, Kevin Blumberg wrote:
I'm sending out a revised version of prop-208. Included is an attachment with a
redline version to assist.
I would appreciate any feedback of su
I support.
On Tue, 2014-05-06 at 01:44 +, Kevin Blumberg wrote:
> I'm sending out a revised version of prop-208. Included is an attachment with
> a redline version to assist.
>
> I would appreciate any feedback of support or questions.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Kevin Blumberg
>
> ARIN-prop-208 Re
l@arin.net List (arin-ppml@arin.net)
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-208 Reduce All Minimum Allocation/Assignment
Units to /24
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 9:44 PM, Kevin Blumberg wrote:
> I'm sending out a revised version of prop-208. Included is an attachment with
> a redline version t
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 9:44 PM, Kevin Blumberg wrote:
> I'm sending out a revised version of prop-208. Included is an attachment with
> a redline version to assist.
>
> I would appreciate any feedback of support or questions.
I OPPOSE the draft as written.
Don't collapse singlehomed and multiho
Martin -
The original proposal and this draft both seemed straightforwards (and
easily supportable) to me.
Can you please articulate in more detail what your objections are, both in
theory and in the textual changes/details?
I honestly do not currently understand what your issue(s) are. I would
Owen, no one is surprised you're minimizing the changes. Of course you are.
:-) That's alright. The point here is that if this is to become "law"
sooner than later ARIN needs much more than the usual weak support.
The redline that you all chose to put forth appears to be little more than
lipstick
Interesting estimate.
The policy text contains a total of 9 NRPM sections which are modified. I
suppose if you want to contemplate each single deletion and insertion as a
separate text change, then there are, in fact, exactly 30 total changes, but
most of them were, in fact, part of the origina
Actually, Bill, it's not. There are significant changes in the tone and
tenor and therefore how it will be interpreted and how people familiar with
the previous iteration will now have to adapt to figure out how to satisfy
the borg with this iteration. It may appear easy, that the staff is super
he
Support the fully fleshed out redline etc version.
-george
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Kevin Blumberg wrote:
> I'm sending out a revised version of prop-208. Included is an attachment
> with a redline version to assist.
>
> I would appreciate any feedback of support or questions.
>
> Thank
Great. Digest it and then determine if you support it or not. This
proposal is the same as that which has received all the popular support
only it is now a complete, comprehensive proposal that does not leave the
NRPM in tatters.
bd
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 9:08 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
>
Estimated thirty changes to text. It appears that the AC just couldn't
resist modifying what we all agreed on en masse.
It'll take some time to evaluate all thirty plus changes. I'll reserve my
comments for the NANOG PPC in Bellevue.
Best,
-M<
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 9:57 PM, Owen DeLong wro
In short, because as specified, the changes ended up with the NRPM being
somewhat nonsensical.
This revision does not change any of the original inent, preserves most of the
original text of the proposal, and leaves the NRPM in tact with legible text
after making the changes.
Do you have a pro
Why couldn't the AC simply implement the changes that were massively agreed
upon here, as is -- which was also part of the discussion?
Best,
-M<
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 9:44 PM, Kevin Blumberg wrote:
> I'm sending out a revised version of prop-208. Included is an attachment
> with a redline
23 matches
Mail list logo
