Following up from the PPC held at the NANOG in the Icepocalypse 2014 (Atlanta). There was support for this proposal, minus the administrative language around fee class. As I had mentioned, removal of that language makes sense. It was a cleanup of language that had already existed, there may be an unintended consequence of removal. I'm sure the AC will figure something out.
I did a spot check of 206.223.122-142 nets and found that I could validate 2 out of 20 to be in compliance with 4.4 policy. One was a test network with a few personal machines on it, 206.223.132.0/24 (dis-aggregate of an assigned /22) http://bgp.he.net/net/206.223.132.0/24#_dns and one that appeared to be a defunct IXP block that was formerly associated with PacBell, but now with another, PCH. I found one transferred to LACNIC ( 206.223.124.0/24). I can't verify it's usage either. The overall states were a) assigned to defunct entities, b) not used to policy, c) participants < 2 > N Yrs, d) former use well known, later use unknown. That's not to say that these or more aren't actually valid. YMMV. Best, -M< On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:22 PM, William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Heather Schiller > <[email protected]> wrote: > > I am opposed to the policy because of this line " IXP's formed as non > > profits will be considered end user organizations. All others will be > > considered ISPs." > > > > This statement will impact the overwhelming majority of Critical > > Infrastructure assignment holders, the majority of which are not IX's. > The > > goal of attempting preservation should be done by how the allocation is > > justified, not how much the entity is billed. 111 of the CI allocations > > are not to IX's. Of the 66 IX allocations it is nearly split between end > > users and ISP's. > > Hi Heather, > > Read it in context. The draft replaces only one of five paragraphs in > section 4.4. The paragraph replaced and its replacement address only > IXPs, not other providers of critical infrastructure. > > https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four4 > > Nevertheless, would your objection be solved if "All others" was > replaced with "All other IXPs"? > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > -- > William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected] > 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> > Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 > _______________________________________________ > 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. >
_______________________________________________ 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.
