On Sep 26, 2013, at 3:06 PM, Gary Buhrmaster <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 6:21 PM, John Curran <[email protected]> wrote: > ... >> That is correct (and reflects current practice handling resource requests.) > > John, > > I support the policy, but I do have a few questions that > would help finalize my thinking (that I do not recall seeing > asked or answered). I understand that any answers are > going to be more WAGs than facts, and you may not > have the information or ability to provide the answers, > but any answers would help me (and perhaps others) > recognize the implications of such a change (if any)? > I'll accept as many additional caveats you want to add > to any response. > > * If this policy was in place for (say) the last year, what > is the order of magnitude of number of requests that > would have been referred to another RIR (1, 10, 100, 1000)? > > * If this policy was in place for (say) the last year, can > you break down the requests by the RIR that the > requester appeared to be have their plurality? > > * If this policy was in place for (say) the last year, what > is the order of magnitude of the IPv4 numbers that > would not have been issued by ARIN (/24 ... /8)? Gary - We're looking into your concerns, and will see whether we can provide any insights/WAGs can be provided regarding the potential impact of the policy (as compared to past requests.) Thanks for the thought-provoking questions! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
