Guys
Seth pointed out that my clients' issue is solved with
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_13.html
And that is in fact true. And indeed they can meet the criteria.
So I retract my comment.
Bruce C
On 09/04/2014 11:49 AM, Bruce Cornett wrote:
For what it is worth, I think this is a good policy for the smaller guys.
I have two clients that desperately want their own allocation. One
runs a WISP with a /24 and the other high security cloud stack with a
/22.
Both need to double immediately. And I hate parting with the address
space. They cannot meet the /20 criteria and giving them addresses
from our space limits our business model - because granting that won't
push us to the point where we can request more. And dual homing them
doesn't do anything for my business.
It seems to me that this policy resolves that issue and will allow
these clients to properly address their business model. And allow us
to properly address our business plan without depleting our address
space prematurely.
It's a good thing.
Bruce C
On 09/03/2014 09:36 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I can stand up a bunch of organizations almost overni
_______________________________________________
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.
