I support the proposed as written.
rd
On Apr 18, 2017 10:25 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: LAST CALL for Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3:
Alternative Simplified Criteria for Justifying Small IPv4
Transfers (Brett Frankenberger)
2. Re: LAST CALL for Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3:
Alternative Simplified Criteria for Justifying Small IPv4
Transfers (Owen DeLong)
3. Re: LAST CALL for Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3:
Alternative Simplified Criteria for Justifying Small IPv4
Transfers (Martin Hannigan)
4. Re: LAST CALL for Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3:
Alternative Simplified Criteria for Justifying Small IPv4
Transfers (Scott Leibrand)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 19:01:05 -0500
From: Brett Frankenberger <[email protected]>
To: ARIN <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] LAST CALL for Recommended Draft Policy
ARIN-2016-3: Alternative Simplified Criteria for Justifying Small
IPv4
Transfers
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 05 April 2017 and decided to
> send the following Recommended Draft Policy to Last Call:
>
> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3: Alternative Simplified Criteria for
> Justifying Small IPv4 Transfers
>
> 8.5.7 Alternative Additional IPv4 Address Block Criteria
>
> In lieu of 8.5.5 and 8.5.6, organizations may qualify for additional IPv4
> address blocks by demonstrating 80% utilization of their currently
> allocated space. If they do so, they qualify to receive one or more
> transfers up to the total size of their current ARIN IPv4 address
holdings,
> with a maximum size of /16.
>
> An organization may qualify via 8.5.7 for a total of a /16 equivalent in
> any 6 month period.
Little late in the game for this, I know, but this language appears
ambiguous as to whether or not end-users are permitted to use this
policy. "Organizations" is inclusive of end users, but "allocated" (in
"allocated space") could be read to exclude organizations that only
have assignments. Given the general intent of other 8.x policies to
include end users and providers, I would assume that is the intent here
(both other 8.x policies generally don't mention allocations without
assignments or vice versa). Perhaps "allocated" should be edited to
read "allocated or assigned" or something similar. (Or "transferred,
allocated, or assigned" to maintain consistency with 8.3 and 8.4.)
Maybe it's not an issue; perhaps ARIN could comment as to whether or
not, if this policy were implemented as currently written, they would
allow end-users to qualify for transfers under 8.5.7.
I support this policy if it applies equally to end users and providers.
-- Brett
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 18:29:35 -0700
From: Owen DeLong <[email protected]>
To: Brett Frankenberger <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] LAST CALL for Recommended Draft Policy
ARIN-2016-3: Alternative Simplified Criteria for Justifying Small
IPv4
Transfers
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> On Apr 18, 2017, at 17:01 , Brett Frankenberger <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 05 April 2017 and decided to
>> send the following Recommended Draft Policy to Last Call:
>>
>> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3: Alternative Simplified Criteria for
>> Justifying Small IPv4 Transfers
>>
>> 8.5.7 Alternative Additional IPv4 Address Block Criteria
>>
>> In lieu of 8.5.5 and 8.5.6, organizations may qualify for additional IPv4
>> address blocks by demonstrating 80% utilization of their currently
>> allocated space. If they do so, they qualify to receive one or more
>> transfers up to the total size of their current ARIN IPv4 address
holdings,
>> with a maximum size of /16.
>>
>> An organization may qualify via 8.5.7 for a total of a /16 equivalent in
>> any 6 month period.
>
> Little late in the game for this, I know, but this language appears
> ambiguous as to whether or not end-users are permitted to use this
> policy. "Organizations" is inclusive of end users, but "allocated" (in
> "allocated space") could be read to exclude organizations that only
> have assignments. Given the general intent of other 8.x policies to
> include end users and providers, I would assume that is the intent here
> (both other 8.x policies generally don't mention allocations without
> assignments or vice versa). Perhaps "allocated" should be edited to
> read "allocated or assigned" or something similar. (Or "transferred,
> allocated, or assigned" to maintain consistency with 8.3 and 8.4.)
>
> Maybe it's not an issue; perhaps ARIN could comment as to whether or
> not, if this policy were implemented as currently written, they would
> allow end-users to qualify for transfers under 8.5.7.
>
> I support this policy if it applies equally to end users and providers.
>
> ? Brett
I agree that is the intent and I will attempt to get the words ?or
assigned? added
to the policy before it is recommended to the board. I believe this to be an
appropriate editorial change. Note, I do not speak for the AC in this
regard, it
is just my personal opinion and a statement of what I intend to do in the
upcoming
AC meeting, nothing more.
Owen
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 01:54:17 +0000
From: Martin Hannigan <[email protected]>
To: Brett Frankenberger <[email protected]>, Owen DeLong
<[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] LAST CALL for Recommended Draft Policy
ARIN-2016-3: Alternative Simplified Criteria for Justifying Small
IPv4
Transfers
Message-ID:
<CAMDXq5Os1d2GBn=EWpcO3ZjQ2hhmU2jaf=yvkdcgp3+nedl...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Makes sense to me and I'm the penultimate editorial change hater.
Best,
-M<
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 21:30 Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 18, 2017, at 17:01 , Brett Frankenberger <[email protected]
>
> wrote:
> >
> >> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 05 April 2017 and decided to
> >> send the following Recommended Draft Policy to Last Call:
> >>
> >> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3: Alternative Simplified Criteria
> for
> >> Justifying Small IPv4 Transfers
> >>
> >> 8.5.7 Alternative Additional IPv4 Address Block Criteria
> >>
> >> In lieu of 8.5.5 and 8.5.6, organizations may qualify for additional
> IPv4
> >> address blocks by demonstrating 80% utilization of their currently
> >> allocated space. If they do so, they qualify to receive one or more
> >> transfers up to the total size of their current ARIN IPv4 address
> holdings,
> >> with a maximum size of /16.
> >>
> >> An organization may qualify via 8.5.7 for a total of a /16 equivalent
in
> >> any 6 month period.
> >
> > Little late in the game for this, I know, but this language appears
> > ambiguous as to whether or not end-users are permitted to use this
> > policy. "Organizations" is inclusive of end users, but "allocated" (in
> > "allocated space") could be read to exclude organizations that only
> > have assignments. Given the general intent of other 8.x policies to
> > include end users and providers, I would assume that is the intent here
> > (both other 8.x policies generally don't mention allocations without
> > assignments or vice versa). Perhaps "allocated" should be edited to
> > read "allocated or assigned" or something similar. (Or "transferred,
> > allocated, or assigned" to maintain consistency with 8.3 and 8.4.)
> >
> > Maybe it's not an issue; perhaps ARIN could comment as to whether or
> > not, if this policy were implemented as currently written, they would
> > allow end-users to qualify for transfers under 8.5.7.
> >
> > I support this policy if it applies equally to end users and providers.
> >
> > ? Brett
>
> I agree that is the intent and I will attempt to get the words ?or
> assigned? added
> to the policy before it is recommended to the board. I believe this to be
> an
> appropriate editorial change. Note, I do not speak for the AC in this
> regard, it
> is just my personal opinion and a statement of what I intend to do in the
> upcoming
> AC meeting, nothing more.
>
> Owen
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/
attachments/20170419/f69ac3ba/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 19:24:29 -0700
From: Scott Leibrand <[email protected]>
To: Martin Hannigan <[email protected]>
Cc: Brett Frankenberger <[email protected]>, Owen DeLong
<[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] LAST CALL for Recommended Draft Policy
ARIN-2016-3: Alternative Simplified Criteria for Justifying Small
IPv4
Transfers
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
+1 to that being a useful editorial change consistent with the policy
intent as I understand it.
Scott
> On Apr 18, 2017, at 6:54 PM, Martin Hannigan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> Makes sense to me and I'm the penultimate editorial change hater.
>
> Best,
>
> -M<
>
>
>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 21:30 Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > On Apr 18, 2017, at 17:01 , Brett Frankenberger <
[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 05 April 2017 and decided to
>> >> send the following Recommended Draft Policy to Last Call:
>> >>
>> >> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3: Alternative Simplified Criteria
for
>> >> Justifying Small IPv4 Transfers
>> >>
>> >> 8.5.7 Alternative Additional IPv4 Address Block Criteria
>> >>
>> >> In lieu of 8.5.5 and 8.5.6, organizations may qualify for additional
IPv4
>> >> address blocks by demonstrating 80% utilization of their currently
>> >> allocated space. If they do so, they qualify to receive one or more
>> >> transfers up to the total size of their current ARIN IPv4 address
holdings,
>> >> with a maximum size of /16.
>> >>
>> >> An organization may qualify via 8.5.7 for a total of a /16 equivalent
in
>> >> any 6 month period.
>> >
>> > Little late in the game for this, I know, but this language appears
>> > ambiguous as to whether or not end-users are permitted to use this
>> > policy. "Organizations" is inclusive of end users, but "allocated" (in
>> > "allocated space") could be read to exclude organizations that only
>> > have assignments. Given the general intent of other 8.x policies to
>> > include end users and providers, I would assume that is the intent here
>> > (both other 8.x policies generally don't mention allocations without
>> > assignments or vice versa). Perhaps "allocated" should be edited to
>> > read "allocated or assigned" or something similar. (Or "transferred,
>> > allocated, or assigned" to maintain consistency with 8.3 and 8.4.)
>> >
>> > Maybe it's not an issue; perhaps ARIN could comment as to whether or
>> > not, if this policy were implemented as currently written, they would
>> > allow end-users to qualify for transfers under 8.5.7.
>> >
>> > I support this policy if it applies equally to end users and providers.
>> >
>> > ? Brett
>>
>> I agree that is the intent and I will attempt to get the words ?or
assigned? added
>> to the policy before it is recommended to the board. I believe this to
be an
>> appropriate editorial change. Note, I do not speak for the AC in this
regard, it
>> is just my personal opinion and a statement of what I intend to do in
the upcoming
>> AC meeting, nothing more.
>>
>> Owen
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/
attachments/20170418/c0f7e4bd/attachment.html>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
------------------------------
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 142, Issue 10
******************************************
_______________________________________________
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.
