On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 6:18 PM, William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote: [snip]
Agreed. Also agree that IXPs with only a handful of participants are a very easy low-cost renumbering scenario. Why should the bar be as low as two or 3 participants? Why not make the required number at least 9 or 10 participants minimum, with actual documentation for 4 or 5, before a whole /24 is warranted? It's not abuse I'm worried about. Abusers will coax the documentation > to say what ARIN expects to hear. And if busted for fraud they'll get > what's coming to them. My issue is with the unrecoverable addresses > when the perfectly honest "IXP" fails to grow from two participants. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > -- -JH
_______________________________________________ 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.
