I can assure you that based on my own experiences in very large
companies that I'd have few issues complying with this new
requirement. I like the idea and honestly, ARIN is damned if they do
(see this pretty inane thread) and damned if they don't (wait until
RIR exhaustion 'day' comes and goes an
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 01:12:42PM +0100, Michael Dillon wrote:
>
> I think that many company officers will ask to see the results of an audit
> before they sign this document, and they will want the audit to be performed
> by qualified CPAs. Are your IPv4 records in good enough shape that an
> ac
On Apr 23, 2009, at 11:31 AM, Manish Karir wrote:
Would there be interest in trying to organize a day long
mini-nanog with the ietf in March 2010?
The regular nanog mtg is scheduled for Feb 22 2010 so this
would have to be an extra meeting. and would require all
sorts of help and interest fro
> Actually, being a CTO of a company, I know that my CEO signs things ALL the
> time based just on my say so. I don't see how signing a document for ARIN
> would land them in court, further if he were to go to court, he'd simply say
> that he relied on the opinions of his technical staff since he d
Chris Grundemann wrote:
"They" is YOU. ARIN policy is created by the community - "Your voice,
your community." ...
If you participated in the ARIN PDP (1)...
Ok, so am I the only one who missed which policy proposal this was that
generated the new requirement that an officer sign off on th
Apologies for a somewhat latent response - I was attending an IPv6
Seminar (of which ARIN was a sponsor) the last two days and am just
getting to nanog mail today.
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 15:42, Shane Ronan wrote:
> I'm not sure if anyone agrees with me, but these responses seem like a big
> cop
Would there be interest in trying to organize a day long
mini-nanog with the ietf in March 2010?
The regular nanog mtg is scheduled for Feb 22 2010 so this
would have to be an extra meeting. and would require all
sorts of help and interest from the ietf to put together.
Perhaps the NANOG SC ca
On 23 apr 2009, at 14:17, Adrian Chadd wrote:
Methinks its time a large cabal of network operators should represent
at IETF and make their opinions heard as a collective group.
That would be how change is brought about in a participative
organisation,
no? :)
Why don't you start by simpling
On 24/04/2009, at 12:14 AM, Pekka Savola wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Nathan Ward wrote:
After trying to participate on mailing lists for about 2 or 3
years, it's pretty hard to get anything done without going to
meetings.
Just participating in mailing lists is good for keeping up to date,
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 08:17:07PM +0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009, William Allen Simpson wrote:
>
> > Some wag around here re-christened it the IVTF (V stands for Vendor, not
> > Victory). ;-) I haven't bothered to go in years
>
> If the people with operational experience
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009, William Allen Simpson wrote:
> Some wag around here re-christened it the IVTF (V stands for Vendor, not
> Victory). ;-) I haven't bothered to go in years
If the people with operational experience stop going, you can't blame the group
for
being full of vendors.
Methink
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, Nathan Ward wrote:
After trying to participate on mailing lists for about 2 or 3 years, it's
pretty hard to get anything done without going to meetings.
Just participating in mailing lists is good for keeping up to date, but not
so good for getting things changed.
That's
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Depends on the issue. Sometimes bad ideas get traction in the IETF, it's
hard to undo that.
That's an understatement.
Also don't expect too much from IETF participation: if doing X is going
to make a vendor more money than doing Y, they're going to favor X,
On 23 apr 2009, at 12:23, Nathan Ward wrote:
Just participating in mailing lists is good for keeping up to date,
but not so good for getting things changed.
That's what I've found, anyway. Might not always be true.
Depends on the issue. Sometimes bad ideas get traction in the IETF,
it's
On 23/04/2009, at 8:37 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 22 apr 2009, at 23:39, Jack Bates wrote:
Serious input and participation means work and money.
You can participate on mailinglists without attending meetings, so
in that sense it doesn't have to cost money. As an operator, it
woul
On 22 apr 2009, at 23:39, Jack Bates wrote:
What really would help is more people who are not on NANOG pushing
vendors to support IPv6. Even my Juniper SE has mentioned that I'm
one of 2 people he's had seriously pushing for IPv6 features. Other
vendors have just blown me off all together (
Jack Bates wrote:
> Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>> In v6ops CPE requirements are being discussed so in the future, it
>> should be possible to buy a $50 home router and hook it up to your
>> broadband service or get a cable/DSL modem from your provider and the
>> IPv6 will be routed without requi
On 23/04/2009, at 8:12 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
In v6ops CPE requirements are being discussed so in the future, it
should be possible to buy a $50 home router and hook it up to your
broadband service or get a cable/DSL modem from your provider and
the IPv6 will be
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
What would have helped here is more push in this direction.
What really would help is more people who are not on NANOG pushing
vendors to support IPv6. Even my Juniper SE has mentioned that I'm one
of 2 people he's had seriously pushing for IPv6 features. Other ve
Ron Bonica is leading a BOF during NANOG46 in Philly which may be of interest -
BOF: IETF OPS & MGMT Area,
Ron Bonica, Juniper Networks
Presentation Date: June 14, 2009, 2:00 PM - 3:30 PM
Abstract:
The IETF OPS & MGMT Area documents management technologies and
operational best common practices. T
On 22 apr 2009, at 22:12, Jack Bates wrote:
I think this annoys people more than anything. We're how many years
into the development and deployment cycle of IPv6? What development
cycle is expected out of these CPE devices after a spec is FINALLY
published?
That's certainly one way to loo
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
In v6ops CPE requirements are being discussed so in the future, it
should be possible to buy a $50 home router and hook it up to your
broadband service or get a cable/DSL modem from your provider and the
IPv6 will be routed without requiring backflips from the user.
On 22 apr 2009, at 0:19, Owen DeLong wrote:
B) Again, while it might be the IETF's "job", shouldn't the group
trusted with the management of the IP space at least have a public
opinion about these solutions are designed. Ensuring that they are
designed is such a way to guarantee maximum ado
On Apr 21, 2009, at 3:19 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Well... ARIN is structured with a bottom-up community driven policy
process. That has
served us well for many years, and, I think that changing it would
be a mistake. However,
in this case, that means that the following people are specifically
Not the annual report, the actual books and records, including details
on individual expenses.
On Apr 21, 2009, at 2:54 PM, Kevin Loch wrote:
Shane Ronan wrote:
C) Are ARIN's books open for public inspection? If so, it might be
interesting for the group to see where all our money is going,
You really should go ask a CEO if he'd sign off on something that he
doesn't understand. Really. I can assure you that your impression
is wrong, and most CEOs don't prefer to be standing in court
defending their actions.
Actually, being a CTO of a company, I know that my CEO signs things
On 22/04/2009, at 7:25 AM, Jo Rhett wrote:
On Apr 21, 2009, at 2:42 PM, Shane Ronan wrote:
Mr Curran, given the response you've seen from the group, and in
particular the argument that most CEO's or Officers of firms will
simply sign off on what they IT staff tells them (as they have
litt
Jo Rhett wrote:
Let's translate that: There is no consensus in the community who defines
goals and objectives for ARIN to do Something.
And there is no consensus because the process and/or community has not been
capable of the task. Design-by-committee is a problem we are all familiar
with.
On Apr 21, 2009, at 2:42 PM, Shane Ronan wrote:
I'm not sure if anyone agrees with me, but these responses seem like
a big cop out to me.
A) If ARIN is so concerned about the potential depletion of v4
resources, they should be taking a more proactive roll in proposing
potential solutions
12+M divided by the 3300 "members" is just shy of $4,000 per customer.
Small nit... Not all customers are members.
Owen
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Kevin Loch wrote:
> Shane Ronan wrote:
>
> C) Are ARIN's books open for public inspection? If so, it might be
>> interesting for the group to see where all our money is going, since it's
>> obviously not going to outreach and solution planning. Perhaps it is bein
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Apr 21, 2009, at 4:42 PM, Shane Ronan wrote:
C) Are ARIN's books open for public inspection? If so, it might be
interesting for the group to see where all our money is going, since
it's obviously not going to outreach and solution planning. Pe
On Apr 21, 2009, at 2:42 PM, Shane Ronan wrote:
Mr Curran, given the response you've seen from the group, and in
particular the argument that most CEO's or Officers of firms will
simply sign off on what they IT staff tells them (as they have
little to no understanding of the situation),
Yo
Shane Ronan wrote:
C) Are ARIN's books open for public inspection? If so, it might be
interesting for the group to see where all our money is going, since
it's obviously not going to outreach and solution planning. Perhaps it
is being spent in a reasonable manner, and the fees are where they n
I'm not sure if anyone agrees with me, but these responses seem like a
big cop out to me.
A) If ARIN is so concerned about the potential depletion of v4
resources, they should be taking a more proactive roll in proposing
potential solutions and start conversation rather then saying that the
On Apr 21, 2009, at 10:36 AM, Roger Marquis wrote:
Thanks for the reply John, but PPML has not worked to-date. Too many
legacy interests willing and able to veto any such attempt at a
sustainable
netblock return policy. Not sure how us folks, of a similar mind as
it
were, would be able to c
On Apr 21, 2009, at 10:36 AM, Roger Marquis wrote:
B) Technical standards for NAT & NAPT are the IETF's job, not ARIN's.
Too true, but no reason ARIN could not be taking a more active
role. This
is after all, in ARIN's best interest, not the IETF's.
There is work happening in the behave
On Apr 21, 2009, at 10:36 AM, Roger Marquis wrote:
John Curran wrote:
A) ARIN's not ignoring unneeded legacy allocations, but can't take
action without the Internet community first making some policy
on what action should be taken... Please get together with folks
of similar mind either via P
John Curran wrote:
A) ARIN's not ignoring unneeded legacy allocations, but can't take
action without the Internet community first making some policy
on what action should be taken... Please get together with folks
of similar mind either via PPML or via Public Policy meeting at
the the Open P
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Apr 21, 2009, at 11:01 AM, John Curran wrote:
C) We've routinely lowered fees since inception, not raised them.
Well I'm not sure what your definitely of "routinely" is, but we've
not seen in decrease in our fees any time in the past 8 ye
On Apr 21, 2009, at 11:19 AM, Roger Marquis wrote:
Rich Kulawiec wrote:
If the effort that will go into administering this went instead
into reclaiming IPv4 space that's obviously hijacked and/or being
used by abusive operations, we'd all benefit.
But they can't do that without impacting reve
41 matches
Mail list logo
