Sorry, Mike, I meant to send it to the list. For some reason, Thunderbird only
displayed a "reply" button and "reply-all" was grayed out. I glanced at the
"from:" and thought it was the mailing list; I obviously didn't look at the
address closely enough! 45 years of email experience and still screwing it up!
I will forward to the list...
Thanks for letting me know.
- John
On 8/15/2024 2:33 PM, Mike Burns wrote:
Hi John,
I understand, you were arguing against Bill's comments/suggestions and not the
policy proposal.
You replied only to me.
I don't mind if you place this back on the list if you want.
What do you think about the proposed policy as written, and the grandfathering
options the shepherds offered?
What about re-justifying if the wait is over two years?
Regards,
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: John Santos <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2024 2:02 PM
To: Mike Burns <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2023-8 - Reduce 4.1.8 Maximum Allocation
Hi Mike (and Bill and everyone else) -
I wasn't arguing against the policy proposal. I was arguing against Bill's
suggestion that:
> >> I'd like to see a concrete proposal along the lines of releasing
> >> waitlist addresses to the brokers for sale or directly auctioning
them
> >> off as they become available.
and his assertion:
> >> [...] If your need can afford to
> >> wait three years to fulfill it with addresses, how does that not say
> >> everything that needs to be said about its legitimacy?
by providing a counterexample.
These quotes are in the email I directly replied to.
- John
On 8/15/2024 8:20 AM, Mike Burns wrote:
Hi John,
Off list
The /22 came from the policy we're discussing. The use case you
mention, if they limped along, would be met by the proposed policy.
They would still get the /24 you mentioned so it wasn't really an
argument against the proposal. I should have said a /23 or /22 but the
sentiment is the same.
I wasn't clear enough, sorry about that.
Regards,
Mike
---- On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 18:08:47 -0400 *[email protected] * wrote ----
Where did "/22" come from? I never said they need a /22. I just said they
need
routable IPv4, and more than they can reasonably get from an ISP.
On 8/14/2024 5:07 PM, Mike Burns wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> Hi John,
>
> I can see the validity of that case, although it begs the question why
an
entity that can limp along with a single address needs a /22.
> I concede the waitlist has worked for a long time and it was the best
solution for distributing free pool addresses when they existed in
reasonable quantities.
> Now, with the waitlist times eclipsing justification times, a change is
needed.
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ARIN-PPML <[email protected] <mailto:arin-ppml-
[email protected]>> On Behalf Of John Santos
> Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2024 4:32 PM
> To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2023-8 - Reduce 4.1.8 Maximum Allocation
>
>
>
> On 8/14/2024 3:58 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 12:46 AM Gerry E.. George <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>> As a co-shepherd on policy 2023-8 (Gerry George & Brian Jones) on
>>> Draft Policy ARIN-2023-8: Reduce 4.1.8 Maximum Allocation, I'm
>>> reaching out for additional feedback from the community on this
>>> policy following the robust discussions at and since ARIN-53.
>>
>> Hi Gerry,
>>
>> The wait list system is not really sane. If your need can afford to
>> wait three years to fulfill it with addresses, how does that not say
>> everything that needs to be said about its legitimacy?
>>
>> I'd like to see a concrete proposal along the lines of releasing
>> waitlist addresses to the brokers for sale or directly auctioning them
>> off as they become available. Maybe the mechanics won't work out, but
>> I'd like to see it and consider whether it's a reasonable idea after
>> the details are ironed out. Since these are returned blocks,
>> auctioning them explicitly would also allow bidders to evaluate their
>> reputation history when making an offer rather than getting stuck with
>> whatever random block comes up.
>>
>> In the interests of fairness to the folks who joined the wait list in
>> good faith, perhaps limit the first few auctions to folks already on
>> the waitlist before opening it up to the public at large.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bill Herrin
>
> Perhaps the waiter has a use case that can limp along indefinitely using
an ISP-provided static address (with no real protection against it ever
changing) and a massive amount of NAT and RFC 1918 addresses, but it would
be far more effect if they had a real /24 of routable address space no
subject to the whims of their provider. It is working, but far from
optimal,
and they are willing to wait a few years on the wait list. On the other
hand, they are a small business or a non-profit or an EDU or otherwise lack
deep pockets so they have to watch their budget. The wait list might not be
perfect, but it is the best solution to their needs.
>
>
>
> --
> John Santos
> Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
> 781-861-0670 ext 539
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-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:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml <https://
lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml>
> Please contact [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> if you experience
any
issues.
>
--
John Santos
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539
--
John Santos
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539
--
John Santos
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539
_______________________________________________
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:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
