I oppose this policy, although I do understand and agree with the gut feeling expressed in this thread. For many reasons, a free and global market in IPv4 addresses, which mirrors the goal of a free and global delivery of packets, is what I think would be best. And this requires trade in all directions.
However, let us not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Let’s unpack that gut feeling. I think the gut could be reacting in two ways. First, there is a “balance of trade” argument, which rejects one-way trade barriers as something to be fought against. Why let our valuable commodities flow only outwards towards the world? Second, there is the fairness issue. We all have a sense of fairness and on the face of it, this is patently unfair. For the first argument, let me say that we have North American address owners seeking to sell, and this proposal artificially limits their ability to do that. Is it proper, and our role, to punish these North American entities? Is the correct answer to limited trade even more limited trade? And what of that trade imbalance, wouldn’t this proposal exacerbate that imbalance by precluding the sale of North American assets to swaths of the world? For the second argument, fairness, let us regard the fairness of ipv4 distribution around the world. I know the gut feeling of some in Latin America or Asia or Africa regarding this issue of fairness would have a different expression, when they see that every North American citizen got 5 addresses and every one of them got to share a single ipv4 address with 1000 of their neighbors. Yes, for some countries the ratio is 5000:1 in our favor. http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Media/Internet/IP-addresses-per-capita RIPE, the registry which I consider most advanced in terms of IPv4 market policies, and the registry which processes the largest number of transfers, has already agreed to send addresses via a one-way policy to other RIRs. LACNIC and AFRINIC have discussed one-way policies, and I think it is easy to understand, from their perspectives, the fear of allowing already scarce addresses to leave those regions. I have heard the fear that this would provide incentive for networks in their region to convert to CGN in order to sell their resources to the wealthy nations who already enjoy many addresses. But the bottom line is that address flow is a result of market forces and not policy. When the supply is in one region and the demand in another, forces act as one would expect to move addresses. But when registry stewards stand athwart that flow and say “Stop! Our regard for fairness is outraged!” then, like water finds its level, addresses will find their way to those in need. The net result is things like zombie corporations changing hands, leases which are invisible to Whois, artificial pricing imbalances, and overall unpleasantness. Let’s accept one-way transfers as a recognition of the reality of the historical artifact of address allocation, and as a step in the direction of a true global market, albeit a half-step. This proposal, on the other hand, is a step backwards. Those one-way regions are not suppliers of addresses to the market, so requiring outbound transfers from them will have no effect. On the other hand, denying needed addresses to these address-poor regions will affect them direly. Regards, Mike Burns From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Rudolph Daniel Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2017 9:15 AM To: Owen DeLong <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2017-6 draft policy Thank you Owen, and I remember those exact words when the policy was formulated and I accept that too. Of course, the community did not, at that time see the loop hole we are currently trying to close. So I was being cautious in that whilst we can modify the wording, to achieve a close, is arin staff also confident that it can be implemented. Of course I also appreciate that what ever we as a community do, there is always some out there looking or searching for yet another loop hole. rd Rudi Daniel danielcharles consulting <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kingstown-Saint-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines/DanielCharles/153611257984774> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 6:15 PM, Owen DeLong <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: It is achievable because ARIN will evaluate the policy of each RIR in this regard prior to approving the transfer. Owen On Aug 18, 2017, at 12:36 , Rudolph Daniel <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: " Recipient RIR policy must not permit transfers to other RIRs or NIRs whose policies do not support bi-directional transfers." Whereas I am in support of closing this loophole, I cannot be sure that this is actually achievable... rd On Aug 17, 2017 6:01 PM, <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to [email protected] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]> You can reach the person managing the list at [email protected] <mailto:[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: Revised: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 (Paul McNary) 2. Draft Policy 2017-6: Improve Reciprocity Requirements for Inter RIR Transfers (WOOD Alison * DAS) 3. Re: Revised: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 ([email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ) 4. Re: Revised: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 (David Farmer) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 15:49:47 -0500 From: Paul McNary <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > To: "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> " <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Revised: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 Message-ID: <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Sorry I typed the numbers backwards, yes, that is what I meant. :-) A /48 is smaller than a /47 and would not be required to be registered? A /47 would need to be On 8/17/2017 1:30 PM, Chris Woodfield wrote: > The opposite - a /47 is 2 /48s aggregated. > > -C > >> On Aug 17, 2017, at 11:26 AM, Paul McNary <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> A /47 is smaller than a /48 and would not be required to be registered? >> >> >> On 8/17/2017 12:50 PM, [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> wrote: >>> I note that any ISP size reassignment, with the recommended /48 for each >>> end user site, will be /47 or larger, which must always be registered. >>> >>> Thus, I think 6.5.5.5 language is unneeded, since any LIR/ISP reassignment >>> will be large enough to already trigger registration. >>> >>> Under the current policy, LIR's and ISP's are equal, so usually both terms >>> are stated in any policy that mentions them. >>> >>> May I also suggest that if we are going to require registration upon >>> downstream request for IPv6, that we consider placing the same language and >>> requirements for IPv4 customers as well? And if we do, where do we draw >>> the minimum line? Maybe a /32.... >>> >>> Also, good catch on the cut and paste error..... >>> >>> Albert Erdmann >>> Network Administrator >>> Paradise On Line Inc. >>> >>> >>> On Thu, 17 Aug 2017, Leif Sawyer wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks for the feedback, David. >>>> >>>> I've added the fix for 6.5.5.2, since we're already in the section. >>>> >>>> I've also modified the text for 6.5.5.4 as well, because I think your >>>> suggesting is a little cleaner. >>>> >>>> I'm not sure what the point of 6.5.5.5 is - you're just reiterating >>>> 6.5.5.1. >>>> That said, we could potentially clean up 6.5.5.1 by extending "static IPv6 >>>> assignment" >>>> to "static IPv6 assignment, or allocation," - or something similar. >>>> >>>> >>>> Which also brings to mind the question: LIR or ISP? Both are in use in >>>> 6.5.... >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> From: ARIN-PPML [[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]> ] on behalf of David Farmer >>>> [[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ] >>>> Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2017 8:53 AM >>>> To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>> Cc: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Revised: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization >>>> of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 >>>> >>>> [External Email] >>>> >>>> Here is a slightly different formulation to consider. I refactored the >>>> title a little, and based the phrasing on other parts of section 6.5.5 >>>> >>>> 6.5.5.4 Registration Requested by Recipient >>>> >>>> If requested by the downstream recipient of a block, each static IPv6 >>>> assignment containing a /64 or more addresses, shall be registered, as >>>> described in section 6.5.5.1. >>>> >>>> I'd like us to think about adding an additional section, based on previous >>>> discussions. >>>> >>>> 6.5.5.5 Re-allocation to ISPs >>>> >>>> Each IPv6 re-allocation to a downstream ISP, regardless of size, intended >>>> for further assignment by the downstream ISP's to it's customers, shall be >>>> registered, as described in section 6.5.5.1 >>>> >>>> Also, in Section 6.5.5.2 there is a reference to section 4.2.3.7.1. I >>>> think this is a cut and past error, I think the reference should be to >>>> 6.5.5.1. Please, compare sections 4.2.3.7.1 and 4.2.3.7.2 with sections >>>> 6.5.5.1 and 6.5.5.2 and I think it is obvious what happened. >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 6:10 AM, <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]> >> wrote: >>>> I am in favor of the draft, with or without the changes to make it clearer. >>>> >>>> I suggest the following language for clarity: >>>> >>>> 3) Add new section 6.5.5.4 "Downstream Registration Requests" to the NRPM >>>> that reads "If the downstream recipient of a static assignment of /64 or >>>> more addresses requests publishing of that static assignment in ARIN's >>>> registration database, the ISP must register that static assignment." >>>> >>>> Since "static assignment" is the term in this section, not netblock, I >>>> suggest using this term instead of "netblock". "Of any size" is not >>>> needed, as the language would require the ISP to register in total >>>> whatever size the ISP has assigned to the downstream in the ARIN database >>>> if requested by the downstream recipient, as long as it was /64 or more. >>>> >>>> This language would also prevent requests to register only part of an >>>> assignment. I think this language works in making the intent of the new >>>> section more clear. >>>> >>>> Albert Erdmann >>>> Network Administrator >>>> Paradise On Line Inc. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, 15 Aug 2017, John Santos wrote: >>>> >>>> I think that the "/64 or more addresses" and the "regardless of size" are >>>> meant to convey that any netblock between a /64 and a /48 can and should >>>> be registered if the recipient requests it, even if the block is smaller >>>> than the /47 which would make it mandatory. Perhaps there is better >>>> wording that would make this clearer. >>>> >>>> Three ranges: >>>> >>>> 1. smaller than /64: shouldn't be issued, can't be registered. >>>> 2. /64 through /48: register at recipient's request >>>> 3. /47 or larger: must be registered >>>> >>>> I agree on dynamic assignments >>>> >>>> Otherwise, I think this is a much clearer and better update to the >>>> proposed policy, and can't find any other reason not to support it. (I.E. >>>> this is a tentative vote FOR, if there is such a thing.) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8/15/2017 3:59 PM, David Farmer wrote: >>>> I support what I think is the intent, but I have language/editorial nits; >>>> >>>> 1. In 3) below; Which is it "a /64 or more addresses" or "regardless of >>>> size" that requires registration? I think logically we need one or the >>>> other, or some qualification on "regardless of size" statement. I think >>>> it is a good idea to not require registration of less than a /64. But the >>>> current language seems contradictory, and therefore confusing, my >>>> recommendation is delete "regardless of size", from the sentence and >>>> leaving "a /64 or more addresses". I pretty sure we don't want people >>>> having an expectation that they can request the registration of "their" >>>> /128 address. >>>> >>>> 2. Also in 3) below; It would seem to require even dynamic assignments be >>>> registered if requested, I don't think that is our intent either, section >>>> 6.5.5.1 starts with "Each static IPv6 assignment containing", this needs a >>>> similar qualification. >>>> >>>> Also, I'm fine with the deltas in the policy statement but it would be >>>> helpful to see the final resulting policy block, maybe in a separate email >>>> so we can all see how the result reads. >>>> >>>> Thanks, I think we are getting close, maybe one or two more turns of the >>>> crank. >>>> >>>> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 12:06 PM, ARIN <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > >>>> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> The following has been revised: >>>> >>>> * Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment >>>> Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 >>>> >>>> Revised text is below and can be found at: >>>> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2017_5.html<https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2017_5.html> >>>> <https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2017_5.html<https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2017_5.html>> >>>> >>>> You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC >>>> will evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance of >>>> this draft policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet number >>>> resource policy as stated in the Policy Development Process (PDP). >>>> Specifically, these principles are: >>>> >>>> * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration >>>> * Technically Sound >>>> * Supported by the Community >>>> >>>> The PDP can be found at: >>>> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html<https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html> >>>> <https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html<https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html>> >>>> >>>> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: >>>> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html<https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html> >>>> <https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html<https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html>> >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Sean Hopkins >>>> Policy Analyst >>>> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Problem Statement: >>>> >>>> Current ARIN policy has different WHOIS directory registration >>>> requirements for IPv4 vs IPv6 address assignments. IPv4 >>>> registration is triggered for an assignment of any address block >>>> equal to or greater than a /29 (i.e., eight IPv4 addresses). In >>>> the case of IPv6, registration occurs for an assignment of any >>>> block equal to or greater than a /64, which constitutes one entire >>>> IPv6 subnet and is the minimum block size for an allocation. >>>> Accordingly, there is a significant disparity between IPv4 and >>>> IPv6 WHOIS registration thresholds in the case of assignments, >>>> resulting in more work in the case of IPv6 than is the case for >>>> IPv4. There is no technical or policy rationale for the disparity, >>>> which could serve as a deterrent to more rapid IPv6 adoption. The >>>> purpose of this proposal is to eliminate the disparity and >>>> corresponding adverse consequences. >>>> >>>> Policy statement: >>>> >>>> 1) Alter section 6.5.5.1 "Reassignment information" of the NRPM to >>>> strike "/64 or more addresses" and change to "/47 or more >>>> addresses, or subdelegation of any size that will be individually >>>> announced," >>>> >>>> and >>>> >>>> 2) Alter section 6.5.5.3.1. "Residential Customer Privacy" of the >>>> NRPM by deleting the phrase "holding /64 and larger blocks" >>>> >>>> and >>>> >>>> 3) Add new section 6.5.5.4 "Downstream Registration Requests" to >>>> the NRPM that reads "If the downstream recipient of a netblock ( a >>>> /64 or more addresses) requests publishing in ARIN's registration >>>> database, the ISP must register the netblock, regardless of size." >>>> >>>> Comments: >>>> >>>> a. Timetable for implementation: Policy should be adopted as >>>> soon as possible. >>>> >>>> b. Anything else: >>>> >>>> Author Comments: >>>> >>>> IPv6 should not be more burdensome than the equivalent IPv4 >>>> network size. Currently, assignments of /29 or more of IPv4 space >>>> (8 addresses) require registration. The greatest majority of ISP >>>> customers who have assignments of IPv4 space are of a single IPv4 >>>> address which do not trigger any ARIN registration requirement >>>> when using IPv4. This is NOT true when these same exact customers >>>> use IPv6, as assignments of /64 or more of IPv6 space require >>>> registration. Beginning with RFC 3177, it has been standard >>>> practice to assign a minimum assignment of /64 to every customer >>>> end user site, and less is never used. This means that ALL IPv6 >>>> assignments, including those customers that only use a single IPv4 >>>> address must be registered with ARIN if they are given the minimum >>>> assignment of /64 of IPv6 space. This additional effort may >>>> prevent ISP's from giving IPv6 addresses because of the additional >>>> expense of registering those addresses with ARIN, which is not >>>> required for IPv4. The administrative burden of 100% customer >>>> registration of IPv6 customers is unreasonable, when such is not >>>> required for those customers receiving only IPv4 connections. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> John Santos >>>> Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. >>>> 781-861-0670 ext 539 <tel:(781)%20861-0670> <tel:781-861-0670%20ext% >>>> <tel:781-861-0670%20ext%25> 20539> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PPML >>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]> >). >>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml<http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml> >>>> Please contact [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]> > if you experience any issues. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> =============================================== >>>> David Farmer Email:[email protected] <mailto:email%[email protected]> >>>> <mailto:email%[email protected] <mailto:email%[email protected]> > >>>> Networking & Telecommunication Services >>>> Office of Information Technology >>>> University of Minnesota >>>> 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 <tel:612-626-0815> >>>> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 <tel:612-812-9952> >>>> =============================================== >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PPML >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]> ). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >>> Please contact [email protected] <mailto:[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] >> <mailto:[email protected]> ). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >> Please contact [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> if you experience any >> issues. >> > > ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 20:54:23 +0000 From: WOOD Alison * DAS <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > To: "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> " <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2017-6: Improve Reciprocity Requirements for Inter RIR Transfers Message-ID: <b0ca7478a1f03f4ca96a93288751a91a01a47cf...@wporgexcl10.entss.or.gov <mailto:b0ca7478a1f03f4ca96a93288751a91a01a47cf...@wporgexcl10.entss.or.gov> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Thank you for the feedback on this draft policy to date. I would appreciate any other thoughts or comments on this draft policy. For review, Draft Policy 2017-6 is intended to add the following conditions on Inter RIR transfers to section 8.4: Recipient RIR policy must not permit transfers to other RIRs or NIRs whose policies do not support bi-directional transfers. And the problem statement on this draft policy is: Currently ARIN's requirement that inter-RIR transfer policies be reciprocal has a glaring hole in it in that RIRs which have NIRs and/or a two-hop RIR transfer process can be used to circumvent the intent of the requirement. Rather than eliminate the requirement, a better approach would be to close the loophole. All feedback is appreciated. Thank you -Alison Wood -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170817/22d7858b/attachment-0001.html> ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 18:00:05 -0400 (EDT) From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> To: "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> " <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Revised: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 Message-ID: <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="x-unknown"; Format="flowed" While the most recent drafts have not dealt with IPv4, in the last round there was a proposal to require registration upon request of the downstream customer of their IPv6 assignment. If we intend to provide that power to require registration for IPv6 customer assignments upon request, in fairness we should also use the same language in a new 4.2.3.7.4 to allow static IPv4 customers that same power. I suggest /32 as the limit, as /29 or more already has required registration. The same problems identfied in not being able to register assignments with ARIN for v6 are also true for v4 assignments between those limits. Since both protocols are still being addressed and attempts are being made by the draft to make v6 equal or better than v4, the title should remain. The only thing we have done is not shift the v4 limit of /29. Albert Erdmann Network Administrator Paradise On Line Inc. > While we???re turning the crank, can we please fix the title since IPv4 > is no longer relevant to the proposal and there???s really no > equalization happening? > > Perhaps ???Improved Registration Requirements for IPv6??? > > Owen ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 17:01:09 -0500 From: David Farmer <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > To: Leif Sawyer <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Cc: "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> " <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >, "[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> " <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Revised: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 Message-ID: <CAN-Dau0+4ms_7V-=y89zavkp+duwvhk932fbkfburtb_ryy...@mail.gmail.com <mailto:y89zavkp%[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 1:43 PM, David Farmer <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: > Inline. > > On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 12:29 PM, Leif Sawyer <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Thanks for the feedback, David. >> > ... > I'm not sure what the point of 6.5.5.5 is - you're just reiterating >> 6.5.5.1. >> That said, we could potentially clean up 6.5.5.1 by extending "static >> IPv6 assignment" >> to "static IPv6 assignment, or allocation," - or something similar. >> > > ISP re-allocations need to be registered regardless of size or if it is > being advertised or not. For example, if for some stupid reason a /56 was > re-allocated to downsterm ISP so they could assign /64s to customers that > has to be registered, by 6.5.5.1 that wouldn't have to be registered. > Should you re-allocate a /56, @!@#$ NO!!! But if you did, it has to be > registered. This is so LEA and other legal requests get directly to the > correct ISP the first time. I think this is important enough issue that it > should have it's own section, and not get blended in to 6.5.5.1. > > Now should that be part of this policy maybe not, maybe this belongs in > ARIN-2017-3 or whole new separate policy proposal instead. > Thinking about this for the last couple hours I'm thinking 6.5.5.5 this should not be part of this policy. As similar text should be added in the IPv4 section, and this should have a somewhat different problem statement as well. -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:[email protected] <mailto:email%[email protected]> Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 <tel:612-626-0815> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 <tel:612-812-9952> =============================================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170817/7e7a2fcd/attachment.html> ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML mailing list [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml ------------------------------ End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 146, Issue 10 ****************************************** _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] <mailto:[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.
