I think I'd be ok with that... do we need language in one or the other
that explains what happens if both pass?
Matthew Kaufman
matt...@matthew.at
On 6/23/2015 5:21 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I agree with your reasoning, but as a conclusion, I support the broader-based
2015-5 as I believe it provides a more flexible solution to a wider swath of
the ARIN community.
Owen
On Jun 23, 2015, at 17:19 , Matthew Kaufman <matt...@matthew.at> wrote:
On 6/23/2015 1:06 PM, ARIN wrote:
Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6
Transfers and Multi-national Networks
I support this policy. For whatever reason, an entity may choose to be utilizing its
address space anywhere in the world. Where the addresses are being used at this instant
should not have any bearing on whether or not they are "utilized". Clearly if I
have a /24 filled to 95% capacity with running VMs, and they're running on physical
hardware in Virginia, that /24 is utilized. If I happen to choose later today to move
them to a physical host in Luxembourg, the addresses didn't stop being utilized...
they're just temporarily being used somewhere else in the world, and that's perfectly
reasonable.
Further, keeping restrictions like this will simply cause entities to work
around the policy either by using subsidiaries or by not even bothering to
record transfers.
Matthew Kaufman
matt...@matthew.at
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
