On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 3:22 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>
> Maybe there's a third way we're not seeing, like retiring e, adding
> the new element as f, and then re-inserting the catchall some other
> way, point g or as a sentence that follows the ordered list.
Oooh, I like that--remove the catch-
I am in favor of this proposal. Relaxing the requirements could foster
further IPv6 adoption.
Brian Jones
bjo...@vt.edu
___
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubs
I support the policy as written.
> -Original Message-
> From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On
> Behalf Of ARIN
> Sent: September 1, 2015 1:21 PM
> To: arin-ppml@arin.net
> Subject: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-
ARIN-2015-1 has been revised to show only the proposed addition to the
policy.
ARIN-2015-1 is below and can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2015_1.html
You are encouraged to discuss Draft Policy 2015-1 on the PPML prior to
the ARIN Public Policy Consultation at ARIN 36 in Mon
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Are we really going to spend this much time rethinking bullet points?
What better opportunity will you have to learn how to write a policy
draft _well_ than with one which is inoffensive? The knowledge and
skill gained can serve you even with
Are we really going to spend this much time rethinking bullet points?
Move e to f, insert new e, move on. This is not a complicated proposal. It
makes sense.
I agree it is clearer as a diff with an attached redline than as a full
replacement text.
Beyond that, let’s leave it alone and move it
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 1:55 AM, Scott Leibrand wrote:
> As shepherd, I would be inclined to revise the policy statement so that it
> inserts e) and renumbers the current e) to f), rather than replacing the
> entire section as currently worded. Basically that would just mean
> promoting "b. Gener
Thanks,
Scott
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net]
> > On Behalf Of ARIN
> > Sent: 23 June 2015 1:07 PM
> > To: arin-ppml@arin.net
> > Subject: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1:
&
ent: June-25-15 2:32 PM
To: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1: Modification to
Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments
I still do not think the problem statement is a real issue.
If you have Multiple Discrete Networks (using the IPv4 terminolo
Message-
> From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On
> Behalf Of ARIN
> Sent: 23 June 2015 1:07 PM
> To: arin-ppml@arin.net
> Subject: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1: Modification to
> Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignme
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Andrew Dul wrote:
> Just so I understand you are opposed to the 'editorial' way the policy
> was written, not the content of the actual changes?
Well, that's kinda the crux of it. I don't think I'm opposed to the
changes but to be sure I'd have to pull out the te
On 6/25/2015 6:14 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 4:07 PM, ARIN wrote:
>> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1
>> Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments
> On second thought, I withdraw my support and oppose the policy draft
> as written. While I approve
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 4:07 PM, ARIN wrote:
> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1
> Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments
On second thought, I withdraw my support and oppose the policy draft
as written. While I approve of the policy in concept, the draft
commits two err
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 5:59 AM, Gary T. Giesen wrote:
> While I appreciate your support of this policy, I'm a little confused about
> your statement as this policy doesn't even deal with allocations of a single
> /48. In fact, the current smallest prefix this policy deals with would be a
> /40 (1
fact that number was deliberately chosen
because of that).
Cheers,
GTG
Sent from my Samsung device
Original message
From: William Herrin
Date: 2015-06-24 17:16 (GMT-05:00)
To:
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1: Modific
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 4:07 PM, ARIN wrote:
> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1
> Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments
> Organizations may justify an initial assignment for addressing devices
> directly attached to their own network infrastructure, with an intent for
implement technical hacks.
Cheers,
GTG
From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf
Of Adam Thompson
Sent: June-23-15 8:46 PM
To: Matthew Kaufman; arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1: Modification to
Criteria for
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1: Modification
to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments
On 6/23/2015 1:07 PM, ARIN wrote:
> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1
> Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments
>
I am of mixed opinio
I'll point out that at my current employer, I cannot justify obtaining PI v6
space. So I've deployed ULA + NPT in order to guarantee uniqueness.
I see IPv6 allocation making some of the same assumptions humans have made
through time (e.g. "640k should be enough for anyone "), so I'm not sure I
On 6/23/2015 1:07 PM, ARIN wrote:
Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1
Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments
I am of mixed opinion on this policy. I agree that it should be quite
easy for an organization to receive their own IPv6 space. And I was
fully supportive unt
Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1
Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments
On 18 June 2015 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) recommended
ARIN-2015-1 for adoption, making it a Recommended Draft Policy.
ARIN-2015-1 is below and can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/pro
21 matches
Mail list logo
