On 30 Nov 2017, at 1:08 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
And I will point out that the entire point of validating POCs is to discover
things like /16's that haven't been used for 15 years.
It would seem to me that ARIN staff vacillates between loving and hating
section 3.6 of the NRPM.
Some years they see any attempt at housecleaning stale assignments that are
just on autopilot
(like this mythical /16 - I love how when people cite these examples they never
state the actual numbers - hello!) as an obstacle to increased IPv6
adoption so they hate it and undercut it. Other years they desperately
need to get some IPv4 for someone very big and powerful with maybe a
whole lot of guns and rocket launchers and such and they love this
section since it allows them to scrape together some IPv4 for a need.
<chuckle>
Ted -
You’d be amazed, but ARIN staff actually doesn’t “feel” much about the
various policy text contained in the NRPM… It is entirely the community’s
collective work product, and the only time I hear staff express ‘grumbling'
over policy text is when it is overly ambiguous regarding the intended
policy.
(To the extent that there are concerns on any aspects of the NRPM, we
report such to the community in periodic Policy Experience and
Implementation reports.)
As usual, the key question is (and remains): what the does the ARIN
community feel is the desired policy for POC validation, both when
initially set and with respect to any periodic update?
Thanks!
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
_______________________________________________
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.
