On 08/14/2010 13:27 EDT, Jimi Thompson wrote:
It was 40 acres and a mule - FYI
That was Civil War, for freed slaves. Here in NY, war of independence
veterans were given at least 100 acres each.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_New_York_Military_Tract
iPad
On 8/14/10 11:22 AM, John R. Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
Convincingly said here on an ISP mailing list. But what about the
folks who were denied address assignments by ARIN policies over the
last 15 years? Denied them based on the fiction that ISPs didn't own
IP addresses
I think you mistake my meaning. I don't regard RA and SLAAC as a problem. I
regard their limited capabilities as a minor issue. I regard the IETF religion
that insists on preventing DHCPv6 from having a complete set of capabilities
for some form of RA protectionism to be the largest problem.
Bill,
On Aug 14, 2010, at 8:51 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
In the formal ARIN context, there is a distiction between abuse and
fraud.
abuse:: https://www.arin.net/abuse.html
This is a FAQ for folks who are accusing ARIN of abuse of network. With the
possible
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 12:32:50PM -0700, David Conrad wrote:
Bill,
On Aug 14, 2010, at 8:51 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
In the formal ARIN context, there is a distiction between abuse and
fraud.
abuse:: https://www.arin.net/abuse.html
This is a FAQ for folks
:
It was 40 acres and a mule - FYI
On 8/14/10 11:22 AM, John R. Levinejo...@iecc.com wrote:
Convincingly said here on an ISP mailing list. But what about the
folks who were denied address assignments by ARIN policies over the
last 15 years? Denied them based on the fiction that ISPs didn't own
IP
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 15:25, Ken Chase k...@sizone.org wrote:
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 05:00:04PM -0400, Jared Mauch said:
I know of several large providers that would stop routing such rogue
space.
Really? They'd take a seriously delinquent (and we're only talking about non
payment after
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 21:32, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
when the 'community' is defined as those policy wannabes who do the
flying, take the cruise junkets, ... this is a self-perpetuating
steaming load that is not gonna change.
Yes, those definitions create a steaming load.
But why is
for the embarrassing wannabe example of the month, marla and lee [0] at
the last ietf is just such a shining example. at the mic, they state
are from the arin ac and board, like it was their day job and they were
speaking fo rarin ploicy. and they propose to roll back a decade of
progress
First, in this thread we are not talking about folks who have not paid
ARIN their dues, we are talking about folks who sell addresses
despite not being authorized to do so by ARIN - aka abuse/fraud.
this is less clear-cut than you seem to think it is. but i suspect we
will see it in court
, August 13, 2010 2:13 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Lightly used IP addresses
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 06:49:35PM +, Nathan Eisenberg said:
Is this upstream going to cut that customer off and
lose the revenue, just to satisfy ARIN's bleating?
Isn't this a little bit like an SSL
,
it's just been pushed back several quarters.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010 10:27 AM
To: Jeffrey Lyon
Cc: John Curran; nanog@nanog.org; Ken Chase
Subject: Re: Lightly used IP addresses
On Aug 13, 2010, at 9:12 PM
A possible stick for ARIN could be that any AS that advertises space
for B and any network that uses that rogue AS would not receive
resource requests/changes from ARIN. Perhaps too strong of a stick?
maybe you should not be searching for a stick.
.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010 10:27 AM
To: Jeffrey Lyon
Cc: John Curran; nanog@nanog.org; Ken Chase
Subject: Re: Lightly used IP addresses
On Aug 13, 2010, at 9:12 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
John et al,
I have
Randy Bush wrote:
John - you do not get it...
vadim, i assure you curran gets it. he has been around as long as you
and i. the problem is that he has become a fiduciary of an organization
which sees its survival and growth as its principal goal, free business
class travel for wannabe
On Aug 14, 2010, at 11:30 PM, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
Question: Why does it cost $11 million or more per year (going to some
$22 million per year after 2013) to run a couple of databases that are
Internet-accessible?
Patrick - If this is a reference to ARIN, the budget is approximately
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 17:03:59 MDT, Chris Grundemann said:
First, in this thread we are not talking about folks who have not paid
ARIN their dues, we are talking about folks who sell addresses
despite not being authorized to do so by ARIN - aka abuse/fraud.
Psst.. Hey.. buddy. Over here... wanna
On 08/14/2010 21:24, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 17:03:59 MDT, Chris Grundemann said:
First, in this thread we are not talking about folks who have not paid
ARIN their dues, we are talking about folks who sell addresses
despite not being authorized to do so by ARIN - aka
Owen,
On Aug 14, 2010, at 8:40 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Let's clarify the definition of abuse in this context. We are not talking
about people who use their IPs to abuse the network. We are talking about
resource recipients who use their allocations or assignments in contravention
to the
At the risk of getting called out for posting possibly operationally
significant stuff in the middle of a massive retrospective about
WCOM's acquisitions, here's a circleid post from a couple days ago
from John Curran at ARIN.
http://www.circleid.com/posts/psst_interested_in_some_lightly_used_ip_addresses/
Discuss. :-)
I don't entirely understand the process. Here's the flow chart as far
as I've figured it out:
1. A sells a /20 of IPv4 space to B for, say, $5,000
2. A tells ARIN to transfer the chunk to B
3.
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:36 PM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
I don't entirely understand the process. Here's the flow chart as far
as I've figured it out:
1. A sells a /20 of IPv4 space to B for, say, $5,000
2. A tells ARIN to transfer the chunk to B
3. ARIN says no, B hasn't
On Aug 13, 2010, at 10:36 AM, John Levine wrote:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/psst_interested_in_some_lightly_used_ip_addresses/
Discuss. :-)
I don't entirely understand the process. Here's the flow chart as far
as I've figured it out:
1. A sells a /20 of IPv4 space to B for, say,
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 10:44:12AM -0700, Owen DeLong said:
6. ARIN receives a fraud/abuse complaint that A's space is being used by B.
7. ARIN discovers that A is no longer using the space in accordance with
their RSA
8. ARIN reclaims the space and A and B are left to figure out who
9. I could point out so many cases of justification abuse or
outright fraudulent justification and I bet nothing would actually
transpire.
My two cents.
Jeff
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 10:14 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Aug 13, 2010, at 10:36 AM, John Levine wrote:
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
6. ARIN receives a fraud/abuse complaint that A's space is being used
by B.
7. ARIN discovers that A is no longer using the space in accordance
with their RSA
8. ARIN reclaims the space and A and B are left
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 10:44:12AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Aug 13, 2010, at 10:36 AM, John Levine wrote:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/psst_interested_in_some_lightly_used_ip_addresses/
Discuss. :-)
I don't entirely understand the process. Here's the flow chart as far
as
Jeff,
Go for it. I've always wondered what ARIN had between it's legs.
Andrew
On 8/13/2010 1:53 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
9. I could point out so many cases of justification abuse or
outright fraudulent justification and I bet nothing would actually
transpire.
My two cents.
Jeff
On Fri,
how does ARIN or whomever deal with similar situations where someone is
advertising un-allocated, un-assigned by ARIN IP space in NA? do they have a
deal/agreement with the 'backbone' providers?
-g
6.ARIN receives a fraud/abuse complaint that A's space is being used by B.
7.
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 10:23:56PM +0430, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
9. I could point out so many cases of justification abuse or
outright fraudulent justification and I bet nothing would actually
transpire.
My two cents.
Jeff
if you have data on abuse, please use the ARIN abuse
On Aug 13, 2010, at 10:36 AM, John Levine wrote:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/psst_interested_in_some_lightly_used_ip_addres
ses/
Discuss. :-)
I don't entirely understand the process. Here's the flow chart as far
as I've figured it out:
1. A sells a /20 of IPv4 space to B for, say,
On 8/13/10 2:06 PM, Aaron Wendel wrote:
You know I love you Owen. :)
9. A sues ARIN for tortuous contract interference.
10. B sues ARIN for same.
11. C and D join the law suit.
12. Judges step in.
13. ARIN gets mired in lawsuit after lawsuit
14. Dogs and cats start living together
I don't entirely understand the process. Here's the flow chart as far
as I've figured it out:
1. A sells a /20 of IPv4 space to B for, say, $5,000
2. A tells ARIN to transfer the chunk to B
3. ARIN says no, B hasn't shown that they need it
4. A and B say screw it, and B announces the
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 02:15:51PM -0400, John R. Levine said:
I don't entirely understand the process. Here's the flow chart as far
as I've figured it out:
1. A sells a /20 of IPv4 space to B for, say, $5,000
2. A tells ARIN to transfer the chunk to B
3. ARIN says no, B
Is this upstream going to cut that customer off and
lose the revenue, just to satisfy ARIN's bleating?
Isn't this a little bit like an SSL daemon? One which refuses to process a
revocation list on the basis of the function of the certificate is useless.
The revocation list only has
On Aug 13, 2010, at 2:49 PM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
Is this upstream going to cut that customer off and
lose the revenue, just to satisfy ARIN's bleating?
Isn't this a little bit like an SSL daemon? One which refuses to process a
revocation list on the basis of the function of the
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 18:49 +, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
Isn't this a little bit like an SSL daemon?
no.
One which refuses to process a revocation list on the basis of the
function of the certificate is useless.
no, it's not. ssl as a form of identity assurance itself is what is
I would consider a transit provider who subverted an ARIN revocation to be
disreputable, and seek other sources of transit.
easy to say, but the reality is you may chose not to do so due to logistical,
monetary or management/boss reasons which trumps your constitutionally
balanced
On Aug 13, 2010, at 2:15 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
...
10. ARIN attempts to allocate the /20 to someone else, who is not amused.
Note that at this point ARIN presumably has no more v4 space left, so a
threat never to allocate more space to A or B isn't very scary. Given its
limited
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 06:49:35PM +, Nathan Eisenberg said:
Is this upstream going to cut that customer off and
lose the revenue, just to satisfy ARIN's bleating?
Isn't this a little bit like an SSL daemon? One which refuses to process a
revocation list on the basis of the
On Aug 13, 2010, at 2:31 PM, Ken Chase wrote:
...
Right, and Im answering my own question here, for (8) about the reclaiming -
what upstream is going to stop carrying prefixes from a downstream that's
'illegally' announcing them? Is this upstream going to cut that customer off
and
lose the
I've tried to deal with that a few times - mainly by writing up the
first upstream AS. Usually they don't care (and every time I have
noticed someone blatantly stealing space, it's been spammers).
Good filtering at the transit provider border IMNSHO is the best way to
solve this problem.
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 03:17:50PM -0400, John Curran said:
Ken -
ARIN maintains the WHOIS based on what the community develops for
policies; what's happens in routing tables is entirely up to the
ISP community. No bleating or large sticks here, just turning
the policy
If someone who was downstream from this provider in a similar situation, I'd
say there is a stronger propensity for them to not 'do the right thing'.
which by
the way isn't a law, so who says its right?its a set of guide lines a
group of
folks put together.
But the reality is
On Aug 13, 2010, at 1:55 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
could you provide 4 numbers for me please?
% of ARIN managed resource covered by standard RSA?
% of ARIN managed legacy resource covered by legacy RSA?
% of ARIN managed legacy resource not otherwise covered?
On 8/13/10 10:42 AM, Brandon Galbraith wrote:
Alternate #4: A rents the space to B without ARIN knowing it, while A
continues to claim that the space belongs to them.
This already happens as we speak with IP brokers.
~Seth
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 07:25:56PM +, Nathan Eisenberg said:
But the reality is that you asserted your intention to follow those
guidelines when you requested the allocation, did you not?
If an upstream accepts announcements from a revoked block, what is to stop
them from accepting
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 15:24:45 EDT, Ken Chase said:
I'm indicating (the probably obvious) that these pressures will certainly
increase over time, and as one other member pointed out, the sticks may become
neccessary - and the community will have to become more 'constitutionally
ethical' in
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 1:36 PM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/psst_interested_in_some_lightly_used_ip_addresses/
I don't entirely understand the process. Here's the flow chart as far
as I've figured it out:
1. A sells a /20 of IPv4 space to B for, say,
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 03:43:11PM -0400, John Curran wrote:
On Aug 13, 2010, at 1:55 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
could you provide 4 numbers for me please?
% of ARIN managed resource covered by standard RSA?
% of ARIN managed legacy resource covered by legacy
% of ARIN managed resource covered by standard RSA?
% of ARIN managed legacy resource covered by legacy RSA?
% of ARIN managed legacy resource not otherwise covered?
% of ARIN region entities (A B above) that have offices/relationships
with other RIRs that have a
Those who do not understand market are doomed to reimplementing it, badly.
How come ARIN has any say at all if A wants to sell and B wants to buy? Trying
to fend off the imaginary monopolistic hobgoblin?
Or simply killing the incentive to actually do something about conservation
and, yes,
How come ARIN has any say at all if A wants to sell and B wants to
buy? Trying to fend off the imaginary monopolistic hobgoblin?
self-justification for arin's existence, flying people around to lotso
meetings, fancy hotels, ...
at the rirs, income and control are more important than the health
On Aug 13, 2010, at 4:18 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
We'll work on generating these numbers to the extent
possible for the upcoming meeting; back in April, I noted
that we had about 21% of the legacy space (by total IP
address count) under an LRSA (6%) or RSA (15%). For now,
this is first
We'll work on generating these numbers to the extent
possible for the upcoming meeting; back in April, I noted
that we had about 21% of the legacy space (by total IP
address count) under an LRSA (6%) or RSA (15%). For now,
this is first order estimate for your second and third
On Aug 13, 2010, at 4:37 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
thanks. but i meant when you report at meeting, on web site, whatever.
please report both, not just the one with the larger number.
Yes, will do.
/John
thanks. but i meant when you report at meeting, on web site, whatever.
please report both, not just the one with the larger number.
Yes, will do.
thanks
randy
On Aug 13, 2010, at 4:35 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
How come ARIN has any say at all if A wants to sell and B wants to
buy? Trying to fend off the imaginary monopolistic hobgoblin?
self-justification for arin's existence, flying people around to lotso
meetings, fancy hotels, ...
at the rirs,
(and to answer Randy - the only control over the administration is based
on the policies adopted. Reduce the corpus of applicable policy if that
is your desire.)
we created careers for junior policiy weenies. arin and other rirs have
become well-funded playgrounds for the semi-clued who
I know of several large providers that would stop routing such rogue space.
Any provider that isn't prepared to deal with such a possible customer threat
or problem you don't want to be associating with. They likely harbor other
badness as well.
It may take some time to catch up to them but
I've tried to deal with that a few times - mainly by writing up the
first upstream AS. Usually they don't care (and every time I have
noticed someone blatantly stealing space, it's been spammers).
Has there ever been a case where ARIN has tried to take a block back
from a party to whom they had
On 13/08/10 21:04 -, John Levine wrote:
I've tried to deal with that a few times - mainly by writing up the
first upstream AS. Usually they don't care (and every time I have
noticed someone blatantly stealing space, it's been spammers).
Has there ever been a case where ARIN has tried to
On Aug 13, 2010, at 4:06 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
my assertion to Owen was that his views would apply directly
to the folks under a standard RSA. My reading of the
LRSA suggests that ARIN has a much narrower remit on recovery
of resources covered by
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 05:00:04PM -0400, Jared Mauch said:
I know of several large providers that would stop routing such rogue
space.
Really? They'd take a seriously delinquent (and we're only talking about non
payment after several months to Arin, not spammers or other 'criminal'
elements)
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 04:18:01PM -0500, Dan White said:
Make a public example of the situation. Assign such a block to an ARIN
member with extensive legal resources who's willing to send some nasty
letters out, and back it up with court action to establish legal
precedence.
Or ARIN
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 05:19:20PM -0400, John Curran wrote:
if this characterization is in ballpark, then Owens view on
reclaimation only holds for ~30% of the resource under ARIN
administration.
31% (33/106) of the address space managed by ARIN is per-RSA,
and ARIN's
]
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 5:00 PM
To: Greg Whynott
Cc: Nathan Eisenberg; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Lightly used IP addresses
I know of several large providers that would stop routing such rogue space.
Any provider that isn't prepared to deal with such a possible customer threat
or problem
to make it easiest to understand, i might grind it up into /24
equivalents and present as percentages
Type % of all space% of type space% of total holders % of type
holders
RSA 31%
no-RSA
LRSA 6%
no-LRSA
...
I'm not against ARIN, I think they have good intentions. I'd like to think
so
anyway.
Same here. I'm honestly surprised that there is as much dissention from this
attitude as there seems to be...
Yes, we have returns, revocations, and reclamations occurring routinely.
They're covered
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 09:39:42PM +, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com said:
Thanks for this John. My hope is that folks will try and
avoid using the courts as the arbitor in the event of
dispute over right to use.
--bill
Civil courts is one thing - criminal courts
that there is NO
such thing as owning a block of IP addresses - the real object is the
contractual right to send packets to that address block over their
networks. Because their customers generally want universal
connectivity, they are forced to cooperate with each other - but, as
everybody in this age of NATs
Randy Bush wrote:
(and to answer Randy - the only control over the administration is based
on the policies adopted. Reduce the corpus of applicable policy if that
is your desire.)
we created careers for junior policiy weenies. arin and other rirs have
become well-funded playgrounds for the
First of all, I don't want your organization to have ANY policy at all.
Where'd you get your AS number, again?
government).
ARIN as a policy-making body exists solely due to cluelessness of telco
management. If the execs had any clue, they'd realize that there is NO
such thing as owning a block of IP addresses - the real object is the
contractual right to send packets to that address block over
On Aug 13, 2010, at 5:46 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
to make it easiest to understand, i might grind it up into /24
equivalents and present as percentages
Acknowledged,
/John
If you know of actual fraud or abuse, please report it to ARIN. ARIN does
investigate and attempt to resolve those issues.
Owen
On Aug 13, 2010, at 10:58 AM, Andrew Kirch wrote:
Jeff,
Go for it. I've always wondered what ARIN had between it's legs.
Andrew
On 8/13/2010 1:53 PM,
On Aug 13, 2010, at 11:31 AM, Ken Chase wrote:
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 02:15:51PM -0400, John R. Levine said:
I don't entirely understand the process. Here's the flow chart as far
as I've figured it out:
1. A sells a /20 of IPv4 space to B for, say, $5,000
2. A tells ARIN to transfer
countries prohibit discussions of collective business actions of
any form, unless the government is involved to insure that the public
interest is protected.
As Vadim noted, you can certainly bilaterally negotiate with another ISP
regarding the nature of the routes/IP addresses/traffic that you
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Vadim Antonov a...@kotovnik.com wrote:
How come ARIN has any say at all if A wants to sell and
B wants to buy? Trying to fend off the imaginary
monopolistic hobgoblin?
Because that portion of the address-using community, people just like
you, that shows up and
John - you do not get it...
vadim, i assure you curran gets it. he has been around as long as you
and i. the problem is that he has become a fiduciary of an organization
which sees its survival and growth as its principal goal, free business
class travel for wannabe policy wonks as secondary,
Yet most of the bad ideas in the past 15 years have actually come from
the IETF (TLA's, no end site multihoming, RA religion), some of which
have actually been fixed by the RIR's.
no, they were fixed within the ietf. that's my blood you are taking
about, and i know where and by whom it was
Nathan,
On Aug 13, 2010, at 2:51 PM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
I'm not against ARIN, I think they have good intentions. I'd like to think
so anyway.
Same here. I'm honestly surprised that there is as much dissention from this
attitude as there seems to be...
I suspect the issue arises
Here I know we have eaten costs of term liability and cancelled
contracts more than the dollar figures you have mentioned below to
keep the net clean. Sad that it appears you may not be willing to put
the money where your mouth is.
how noble of you. and how perceptive to equate legitimate
On Aug 13, 2010, at 10:55 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
...
if the iana could get out from under lawyers and domainer greed, and go
back to simply being bookkeeper for the internet, they could do the
automated solution today. well, with some months of setup. and we
could get rid of 95% of the costs
If the allocation and reassignment of address space has no policy
associated with it, then there's no doubt that most of the registry
functions can be automated, and there's no need for the associated
policy development process, public policy meetings, travel, conference
calls. Quite a bit
the fracking rirs, in the name of marla and and lee, actually went to
the ietf last month with a proposal to push address policy back to the
ietf from the ops. and they just did not get thomas's proposal to
move more policy from ietf back to ops.
and, to continue the red herring with jc, i
On Aug 13, 2010, at 11:32 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
If the allocation and reassignment of address space has no policy
associated with it, then there's no doubt that most of the registry
functions can be automated, and there's no need for the associated
policy development process, public policy
one start would be for arin to have the guts not to pay travel
expenses of non-employees/contractors.
ARIN Suggestion process:
https://www.arin.net/participate/acsp/index.html
If you submit it, I will bring it to the Board for consideration. In
fairness, I will tell you that I'll also
On Aug 14, 2010, at 12:17 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
thanks for reaffirming that talking to arin is a waste of time.
If you're going to recommend that we not pay for travel for the
ARIN AC, I'm going to recommend otherwise and point out that the
AC members need to hear from the community, and
John,
I will concur with Randy that much of the travel that ARIN funds is
excessive. ARIN has a booth at trade shows so i'm going to guess that
entire setup with travel costs about $20,000 - 50,000 per show. Why?
To convince me to use ARIN for my IP space needs? To convince us to
switch to IPv6?
Funny!
On one hand people talk about ARIN providing IP allocation at nearly zero cost
and on the other hand talking that ARIN goes after companies that use their
allocation for abuse (which has a non trivial cost and potential expensive
lawsuits)...
Do you know what you want?
. where the ISP turns
out to be simply a purveyor of IP addresses to online marketing
firms), and circumstances such as those are where reclamation is
used.
Does that clarify things?
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
egregious acts (e.g. where the ISP turns
out to be simply a purveyor of IP addresses to online marketing
firms), and circumstances such as those are where reclamation is
used.
Does that clarify things?
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
--
Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team
jeffrey.l
On Aug 13, 2010, at 9:12 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
Vendors are neglecting to support IPv6 because there is no demand.
It would probably be useful to be public about which vendors are still saying
there is no demand for IPv6.
Meanwhile, there are hosting companies, dedicated server companies,
On Aug 14, 2010, at 1:00 AM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
John,
I have privately e-mailed you 5 x /18 and 3 x /19 that are being
abused. If ARIN takes action against even one of these allocations I
will commend you publicly. I'll go do the investigation for you if you
need evidence.
I'm not
You seem to be suggesting that ARIN (and presumably the other RIRs)
invest more in policing the address space and otherwise regulating the
market. How much are you willing to pay for that service?
and how would it make the internet any better?
randy
On Aug 14, 2010, at 12:32 AM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
John,
I will concur with Randy that much of the travel that ARIN funds is
excessive. ARIN has a booth at trade shows so i'm going to guess that
entire setup with travel costs about $20,000 - 50,000 per show. Why?
To convince me to use ARIN
I'm not sure it would make the internet better but it would reinforce
integrity in a general sense. If we're to get away with lying on
justification I might as well go grab a few /18's before the last /8
is issued.
Jeff
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
You seem
I'm not sure it would make the internet better
then i don't want to pay for it. if you have not noticed, money is
tight, and it ain't gonna get better.
randy
On Jan 12, 2010, at 2:34 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Jan 12, 2010, at 2:11 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
3) Should people really argue over what other people do with their own
machines? You don't like SORBS, don't use it. Someone you need to talk to
likes SORBS, make them stop, or
301 - 400 of 521 matches
Mail list logo
