Owen
I would not support an automatic entitlement.
There is no question that the process can seem daunting, but it is a
minimal barrier to entry in my mind.
And I apologize for not paying more attention to the discussion.
Bruce C
On 09/04/2014 01:53 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Sep 4, 2014, a
On 9/4/14, 10:53, Owen DeLong wrote:
In about two weeks, they will be able to qualify at the /24 level, and the /20
criteria completely goes away based on policy which has already been adopted
and is pending implementation.
Given that, do you still see a need for this proposal?
I pointed ou
On Sep 4, 2014, at 8:49 AM, Bruce Cornett wrote:
> For what it is worth, I think this is a good policy for the smaller guys.
>
> I have two clients that desperately want their own allocation. One runs a
> WISP with a /24 and the other high security cloud stack with a /22.
>
> Both need to do
Guys
Seth pointed out that my clients' issue is solved with
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_13.html
And that is in fact true. And indeed they can meet the criteria.
So I retract my comment.
Bruce C
On 09/04/2014 11:49 AM, Bruce Cornett wrote:
For what it is worth, I think this i
On 9/4/14, 8:49, Bruce Cornett wrote:
Both need to double immediately. And I hate parting with the address
space. They cannot meet the /20 criteria and giving them addresses from
our space limits our business model - because granting that won't push
us to the point where we can request more. An
For what it is worth, I think this is a good policy for the smaller guys.
I have two clients that desperately want their own allocation. One runs
a WISP with a /24 and the other high security cloud stack with a /22.
Both need to double immediately. And I hate parting with the address
space.
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 8:32 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> On 9/3/14, 14:57, Steven Ryerse wrote:
>
>> Fair enough, but you have ignored my challenge to show me where it says
>> in ARINs Mission and founding documents that ARIN and this Community is not
>> supposed to also serve small organizations.
ginal Message-
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 10:36 PM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-18:
SimplifyingMinimumAllocations and Assignments
On Sep 3, 2014, at 6:58 PM, Steven Ryerse
omplex Networks℠
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 9:36 PM
> To: Steven Ryerse
> Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-18:
> SimplifyingMinimumAllocations and Assign
Complex Networks℠
-Original Message-
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 9:36 PM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-18:
SimplifyingMinimumAllocations and Assignments
On Sep 3, 2014
-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy
ARIN-2014-18:SimplifyingMinimumAllocations and Assignments
On 14-09-03 06:32 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> On 9/3/14, 14:57, Steven Ryerse wrote:
>> Fair enough, but you have ignored my challenge to show me where it
>> says in ARINs
On Sep 3, 2014, at 6:17 PM, Steven Ryerse wrote:
> Owen, you act like 2014-18 is a big deal. Stand back a moment and look at
> the forest instead of the trees. Nobody can corner the market on the new
> Minimum of a /24 once every year. It would take me 4 years just to get 1024
> addresses
On 14-09-03 06:32 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
On 9/3/14, 14:57, Steven Ryerse wrote:
Fair enough, but you have ignored my challenge to show me where it
says in ARINs Mission and founding documents that ARIN and this
Community is not supposed to also serve small organizations. That is
the foundation
On 9/3/14, 18:17, Steven Ryerse wrote:
I would respectfully ask when considering 2014-18, everyone look at the actual
total effect of this proposed policy change. It is small and I get the sense
from some of the comments that folks don't realize that it would be small.
I disagree, thus stro
On 9/3/14, 14:57, Steven Ryerse wrote:
Fair enough, but you have ignored my challenge to show me where it says in
ARINs Mission and founding documents that ARIN and this Community is not
supposed to also serve small organizations. That is the foundation to this
discussion.
ARIN serves small
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 8:19 PM
To: Steven Ryerse
Cc: Seth Mattinen; arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-18:
SimplifyingMinimumAllocations and Assignments
I believe his point and mine is that from our perspecti
e
>
> ℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
> Conquering Complex Networks℠
>
> -Original Message-
> From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Seth Mattinen
> Sent: Wednesday, September 3, 2014 5:34 PM
> To: arin-ppml@arin
:34 PM
To: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-18:
SimplifyingMinimumAllocations and Assignments
On 9/3/14, 12:46, Steven Ryerse wrote:
> Why is it I keep seeing comments from various folks in this community
> dismissing small organizations? I would ask
Mike,
You misunderstood (or at least mischaracterized) my statement.
I did not say that needs testing doesn’t protect the free pool. Indeed, it is
one of the things that protects the free pool from being drained to the benefit
of organizations without need. However, what I said was that protect
Hi Owen,
"Needs testing is not merely a vehicle to save the remaining free pool. If
that were true, then we would not have subjected the transfer policies to
needs testing."
Prior to the 12 month waiting period for transfers which was implemented in
2012, needs testing was *indeed* required
20 matches
Mail list logo
