On Apr 19, 2011, at 9:08 PM, Peter Thimmesch wrote:
> John,
>
> Please note that we have filed our proposal for accreditation of IP address
> registrars with ICANN over a month ago. (Please see ICANN's Correspondence
> Page, Letters from David Holtzman to David Olive and John Jeffrey, filed 2
> M
It is going to be hard to constructively debate the merits of a
proposal that begins with a rather condescending ad hominem attack.
There are multiple ways to bring a policy discussion in front of a
larger / different audience than whatever group or stakeholder
community you seek to raise it in, b
On Apr 19, 2011, at 4:26 PM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
> I don't think the cost of IPv4 addresses has anywhere to go but up.
> This mysterious Nortel/Microsoft transaction would seem to give
> credibility to an assumption of increasing cost.
I think we can agree on this. It is the natural result of e
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 5:16 PM, Benson Schliesser
wrote:
> Without defining what an optimal cost might be, my comment was intended to
> show that our current baseline already results in a surplus.
I don't think the cost of IPv4 addresses has anywhere to go but up.
This mysterious Nortel/Microso
On Apr 19, 2011, at 4:45 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> Given ARIN's STLS, it would seem even ARIN has the 'right perspective'
> to see the "up$ide".
To be clear, the listing service is simply so that those who want to
be contacted because they need address space can identify themselves,
along with
On Apr 19, 2011, at 3:46 PM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Benson Schliesser
> wrote:
>> Meanwhile, under the current system, ARIN has managed to accumulate a >$25M
>> cash reserve despite an increasing budget. (see
>> https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Benson Schliesser
> wrote:
>> Meanwhile, under the current system, ARIN has managed to accumulate a >$25M
>> cash reserve despite an increasing budget. (see
>> https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/repor
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Benson Schliesser
wrote:
> Meanwhile, under the current system, ARIN has managed to accumulate a >$25M
> cash reserve despite an increasing budget. (see
> https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXVII/PDF/Wednesday/andersen_treasurer.pdf)
If you w
John,
Given ARIN's STLS, it would seem even ARIN has the 'right perspective' to see
the "up$ide". It's more about the implication of folks having increasing
financial incentive to go outside the existing mechanisms (e.g.,
Nortel/Microsoft) and the implications that has on network operations.
S
On Apr 19, 2011, at 3:56 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> On Apr 19, 2011, at 10:19 AM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
>>
>> Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how a bunch of different
>> entities providing fragmented "post-allocation services" is of any
>> benefit.
>
> Some folks find competition in se
On Apr 19, 2011, at 2:56 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> On Apr 19, 2011, at 10:19 AM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
>> Are you saying there are people who advocate creating a new ecosystem
>> of service providers for supplying several things that the RIRs
>> exclusively supply today?
>
> Yes.
>
>> Sign me up.
On Apr 19, 2011, at 3:29 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> to the list I provided you in the previous message. Or are you implying that
> ARIN and the other RIRs are committing to synchronizing their databases with
> alternative address registrars as they become established?
If by "established", you mea
Jeff,
On Apr 19, 2011, at 10:19 AM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
> Are you saying there are people who advocate creating a new ecosystem
> of service providers for supplying several things that the RIRs
> exclusively supply today?
Yes.
> Sign me up. As a vendor. I'd love to over-charge for the dead sim
John,
On Apr 19, 2011, at 9:36 AM, John Curran wrote:
>> There are already two "address registrars" and at least 5 (6 if you count
>> IANA) address whois databases. I expect there to be more in the future,
>> particularly now there is an existence proof that you can sell addresses and
>> the I
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 2:37 PM, John Curran wrote:
> Imagine for a moment that you had quite a few
> unneeded addresses and the upheaval also meant
> no pesky policy constraints on your monetization efforts -
> would you then view it as having some benefit? You just
> might not have the right
On Apr 19, 2011, at 1:19 PM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
> Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how a bunch of different
> entities providing fragmented "post-allocation services" is of any
> benefit.
Jeff -
Imagine for a moment that you had quite a few
unneeded addresses and the upheaval a
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 12:16 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> However, as far as I can tell, multiple registries isn't what is implicitly
> being proposed. What appears to be eing proposed is something a bit like the
> registry/registrar split, where there is a _single_ IPv4 registry and
> multiple
On Apr 19, 2011, at 12:16 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> However, as far as I can tell, multiple registries isn't what is implicitly
> being proposed. What appears to be eing proposed is something a bit like the
> registry/registrar split, where there is a _single_ IPv4 registry and
> multiple comp
John,
On Apr 19, 2011, at 3:46 AM, John Curran wrote:
> Does it have to get worse simply because there is change?
Have to? No. However, historically, entropy has generally increased.
> I see no particular
> reason that the Internet number registry system can't evolve into something
> with m
On Apr 18, 2011, at 10:35 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> To try to bring this back to NANOG (instead of PPML-light), the issue is that
> since at least two alternative registries have apparently been established,
> how are network operators going to deal with the fact that the currently
> execrable
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 18:59, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>> At John Curran's advice, the ARIN Advisory Council abandoned my proposals.
>> Two of them are now in "petition" for further discussion, including
>> ARIN-prop-134 which outlines how to identify a "legitimate address holder"
>> and ARIN-pr
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:35 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> And yet, Ron has recently raged on this list about hijacked prefixes used for
> spamming, so clearly "no transit network" is inaccurate.
I try to qualify my remarks when necessary. In this case, I wrote
"except by act of omission/mistake,"
On Apr 18, 2011, at 10:08 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> If anybody has any doubts and/or I can clarify anything about my
>> interests, let me know.
>
> could you please clarify your relationship to depository.com?
I know some of the people involved in Depository, and I have spoken with them
about w
> If anybody has any doubts and/or I can clarify anything about my
> interests, let me know.
could you please clarify your relationship to depository.com?
randy
>> perhaps, if you are seeking support for commercial activity, you should
>> make your employment more clear and declare any conflicts of interest.
>
> Fair enough.
>
> I am employed by Cisco Systems, but all of my statements are my own and I do
> not represent my employer. I believe that my emp
Hi, Randy.
On Apr 18, 2011, at 9:20 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> I introduced several policy proposals to ARIN that deal with the
>> question of authority and ownership.
>> ...
>> If anybody on NANOG supports these concepts, please express your
>> support to PPML so that the proposals can move forwar
Jeff,
On Apr 18, 2011, at 6:15 PM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
> ARIN has all the buy-in they need: No transit network will (except by
> act of omission/mistake) allow you to announce IPs that aren't
> registered to you in an RIR database, or delegated to you by the
> registrant of those IPs.
And yet, Ro
> I introduced several policy proposals to ARIN that deal with the
> question of authority and ownership.
> ...
> If anybody on NANOG supports these concepts, please express your
> support to PPML so that the proposals can move forward.
perhaps, if you are seeking support for commercial activity,
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 7:33 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> [ARIN] does not have full buy-in from those who they would try to regulate
ARIN has all the buy-in they need: No transit network will (except by
act of omission/mistake) allow you to announce IPs that aren't
registered to you in an RIR databa
>
> At John Curran's advice, the ARIN Advisory Council abandoned my proposals.
> Two of them are now in "petition" for further discussion, including
> ARIN-prop-134 which outlines how to identify a "legitimate address holder"
> and ARIN-prop-136 which allows a Legacy holder to "opt-out" of ARI
On Apr 18, 2011, at 4:33 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> On Apr 18, 2011, at 4:10 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Yes... See ARIN NRPM 8.3 and Simplified Transfer Listing Service (STLS).
>
> ARIN allows the listing of non-ARIN blocks on their listing service?
>
No. If you're talking about inter-RIR transfe
On Apr 18, 2011, at 6:33 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> As far as I can tell, the participants in ARIN's processes are more
> interested in trying to be a regulator than in being a registry. Given ARIN
> is not a government body and it does not have full buy-in from those who they
> would try to re
On Apr 18, 2011, at 6:33 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> Also, doesn't the Microsoft-Nortel transaction violate NPRM 8.3 in that
> according to the court documents I've seen,
John Curran has stated unambiguously (on the ARIN PPML mailing list) that NRPM
policy *was* followed. While I may disagree,
On Apr 18, 2011, at 4:10 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Yes... See ARIN NRPM 8.3 and Simplified Transfer Listing Service (STLS).
ARIN allows the listing of non-ARIN blocks on their listing service?
Also, doesn't the Microsoft-Nortel transaction violate NPRM 8.3 in that
according to the court documents
On Apr 18, 2011, at 3:57 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
> Has this been discussed here?
Not yet for this particular instance.
> I did a quickie search and saw nothing. Other than spam to a technical
> mailing list, do you guys care, or is it a non-issue?
Unfortunately, it's an issue. It's a painful
Yes... See ARIN NRPM 8.3 and Simplified Transfer Listing Service (STLS).
http://www.arin.net
If you want to see changes to these, suggest submitting policy via ARIN PPML
or suggestions via the ARIN Consultation and Suggestion Process (ACSP).
Both are documented at the above web site.
Owen
On A
36 matches
Mail list logo
