Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates
On 10/26/23 16:35, Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML wrote: OK, but consider: Those allocating addresses to customers at a cloud provider — Same exact issues. Those allocating addresses to internal usage at a CDN — Same exact issues. My point is that there is nothing unique about the inherent COI here vs. virtually any other class of user of ARIN services. I disagree. Those who are in the ISP, cloud provider or CDN business are in the business of putting the addresses to use to benefit the Internet community. Number resources are something that are needed for them to do business. Address brokers view number resources as a commodity to be bought, sold and arbitraged. They don't care about the Internet community. CIDR blocks could just as well be pork bellies or oil and gas futures as far as they are concerned. Address brokers fare better when number resources are scarce, as they're more valuable. The others you mentioned do better when the resources are plentiful. Do we want those that personally profit by addresses being scarce in charge of determining ARIN policy? -- Jay Hennigan | j...@impulse.net | CCIE #7880 | WB6RDV Chief Network Architect | Impulse Advanced Communications direct 805.884.6323 | fax 805.880.1523 | www.impulse.net ___ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Deceased Companies
On 8/8/22 16:11, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: LargeCo that has an /8 cannot go to an ISP like, for example, Comcast and request so much as a /29 from Comcast's own pool to stick on the outside of a network address translator UNLESS they justify utilization of that /8 Sure they can. What's stopping them? Their cash spends just the same as that of any other Comcast customer. I don't think there's anything in Comcast's or any other ISP's contract language requiring customers to affirm that they aren't sitting on large blocks of legacy IPv4 space before they'll provide IPs to you. And, as a practical matter, if some remote AT office far from AT infrastructure needs a /29, how do you propose that Comcast route a /29 originating in AT's 12/8 to that remote facility? So no, you are NOT correct. It IS ARIN's business what you are doing with your large legacy block. If you haven't signed an LRSA, how is it any of ARIN's business what you do with your legacy block? Sorry, you cannot be an arrogant ?@?#?$% on this issue today. Arrogant ?@?#?$%s, despite being arrogant ?@?#?$%s, sometimes get their facts right. -- Jay Hennigan | j...@impulse.net | CCIE #7880 | WB6RDV Chief Network Architect | Impulse Advanced Communications direct 805.884.6323 | fax 805.880.1523 | www.impulse.net ___ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Deceased Companies?
On 7/27/22 11:30, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: In the case of non-publicly-traded companies, I believe that there would be a clear value in ARIN knowing, at the very least, that none of the beneficial owners are either (a) convicted felons or (b) are on any international sanctions list. Are convicted felons barred from obtaining number resources? If so, where is this stated? Likewise, those on *ANY* international sanctions list? As a mild example, President Joe Biden is on a Russian sanctions list. https://www.mid.ru/ru/maps/us/1814243/ (Number 33) I disagree that ARIN should spend time or resources researching either of these, nor do I see any clear value to ARIN or the community in doing so. -- Jay Hennigan | j...@impulse.net | CCIE #7880 | WB6RDV Chief Network Architect | Impulse Advanced Communications direct 805.884.6323 | fax 805.880.1523 | www.impulse.net ___ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Deceased Companies?
On 7/25/22 13:08, Paul E McNary via ARIN-PPML wrote: ARIN controls the root servers for this region do they not. I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean the IN-ADDR-ARPA zones? Without the root servers nothing gets routed. DNS != BGP. Routing works just fine without root servers. -- Jay Hennigan | j...@impulse.net | CCIE #7880 | WB6RDV Chief Network Architect | Impulse Advanced Communications direct 805.884.6323 | fax 805.880.1523 | www.impulse.net ___ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-3: Private AS Number and Unique Routing Policy Clarifications
On 3/8/22 06:51, ARIN wrote: The following Draft Policy has been revised: * ARIN-2021-3: Private AS Number and Unique Routing Policy Clarifications Revised text is below and can be found at: https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2021_3/ <https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2021_3/> I concur that "peer" be substituted for "upstream provider" in the first statement below. > To originate announcement of IP Number Resources via an accepted > protocol (such as Border Gateway Protocol) from an AS Number different > than that of its peer; I think that the word "network" should be substituted for "site" below, as the multihoming may originate from multiple locations. > To multihome a network with one or more Autonomous Systems; or I'm not sure what value the third statement below offers that isn't covered by either of the first two, and it seems to weaken the case that public ASNs must be justified. I suggest removing it unless I'm missing a use case not covered by either of the previous two. > To use an AS Number to interconnect with other Autonomous Systems.” -- Jay Hennigan | j...@impulse.net | CCIE #7880 | WB6RDV Chief Network Architect | Impulse Advanced Communications direct 805.884.6323 | fax 805.880.1523 | www.impulse.net ___ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations
On 3/21/22 16:03, Mike Burns wrote: Hi Martin, We once saw an ipv4 block included among hardware as part of a third party lease. That happened years ago and really was a one-off. Generally nobody will recognize IPv4 blocks as assets. That leaves leasing-out addresses by incumbent address holders as the only effective financing mechanism. I'm curious if ARIN has put any thought into how encouraging leasing will affect the practice of spammers and other bad actors leasing IPv4 space, turning it into a DNSBL wasteland, lather, rinse, repeat. -- Jay Hennigan | j...@impulse.net | CCIE #7880 | WB6RDV Chief Network Architect | Impulse Advanced Communications direct 805.884.6323 | fax 805.880.1523 | www.impulse.net ___ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
[arin-ppml] Spammers openly selling ARIN lists
ARIN management - this just received. Any chance of a Cease and Desist?
Full headers on request.
Spam hawking spamming services below ***
From: Nancy Ward
To: [me]
Subject: Re: American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) Leads 2022
Hi there,
I’m contacting you to learn if you would be interested in purchasing the
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) Leads 2022 for your sales,
marketing, and promotional activities.
The List Contains: Name, Company's Name, Phone Number, Fax Number,
Title, Email address, Complete Mailing Address, Company revenue, size,
Web address, etc.
Contacts include: Key decision-makers
Ø Operator, Carrier, Service Provider, VAR, Systems Integrator, Device
Manufacturer
Ø Infrastructure Provider, Consultant, Software, Application Development
Ø Telecom Software Provider, Gov't, Utility, Enterprise, Telecom
Equipment Manufacturer
Ø Business and Technology Leaders, CTOs, Channel & Partner Managers,
Business Development Managers
Ø Analysts & Infrastructure Teams from Cloud Service Providers,
Telecommunications, ISPs
Ø ISVs and the IT Channel and Industry serving the cloud community.
If this sounds of any value, please specify your requirement in detail
so that I can share a few Business contacts just for your review.
I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Kind Regards
Nancy Ward
Demand Generation Specialist
If you do not wish to receive future emails from us, please reply
as “opt-out”
End spam hawking spamming services ***
--
Jay Hennigan | j...@impulse.net | CCIE #7880 | WB6RDV
Chief Network Architect | Impulse Advanced Communications
direct 805.884.6323 | fax 805.880.1523 | www.impulse.net
___
ARIN-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:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
Re: [arin-ppml] Nomcom rejection explanatory letter
On 11/4/21 10:47, John Curran wrote: Patrick - To be clear, this was the statement as prepared by Catherine Middleton, in her role as Chair of this year’s Nomination Committee. The relevant portion of the ARIN Election Process is attached for reference. [snip] 1. In consultation with ARIN’s GC, the NomCom Chair may prepare an explanatory statement of the relevant factors regarding a nominee not included on an election slate. Note: "In consultation with ARIN’s GC" [snip] On 4 Nov 2021, at 11:53 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore <mailto:patr...@ianai.net>> wrote: Sounds to me like a lawyer wrote it, not a member of the NomCom. Which implies the NomCom was not allowed to answer. Yep. This pretty much confirms that Patrick was right. -- Jay Hennigan | j...@impulse.net | CCIE #7880 | WB6RDV Chief Network Architect | Impulse Advanced Communications direct 805.884.6323 | fax 805.880.1523 | www.impulse.net ___ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
[arin-ppml] Spam from ipv4seller.com AKA ipv4salvation.com aka slashnineteen.com
I am getting numerous unsolicited emails at ARIN contact addresses from the above outfit wanting to buy our IPv4 netblocks. Included in the body of the email is the ARIN "Facilitator" logo as well as the other RIRs. Is this in any way sanctioned or authorized by ARIN? If not could we get cease-and-desist please? If so, please reconsider! And, to the entities responsible for [74.91.86.114] (mail origin IP) and [97.74.42.79] (spamvertized website), could we get a LART, please? I'm happy to send spam samples with headers off-list on request. -- Jay Hennigan | j...@impulse.net | CCIE #7880 | WB6RDV Chief Network Architect | Impulse Advanced Communications direct 805.884.6323 | fax 805.880.1523 | www.impulse.net ___ 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.
Re: [arin-ppml] Policy idea: POC Validation
On 4/13/15 1:29 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: David, I don’t see the angry phone call as the problem. I see it as a symptom. The problem is the incorrect registrations. I want us to find out about those incorrect registrations and resolve them. I certainly don’t want to simply remove the symptom (angry phone call) by masking the problem (incorrect registration). They aren't necessarily incorrect registrations, they're redundant registrations never requested by the POC. I've been on the receiving end of this for several years. Here's one issue as I've observed it. We're a regional ISP, and from time to time will have a customer out of our service area with a need for direct Internet access. We contract with several major providers for this, and one of them is Centurylink. CenturyLink has some form of (presumably automated) process where they process our order and submit my contact information from their order to ARIN, consisting of my email address, phone number, etc. but with the street address of our end-user customer. For each of these, ARIN generates a separate unique POC record and then sends annual POC validation requests. Of course, until I get these annual requests, I have no idea that the POC records even exist. ARIN apparently expects me to, for each and every one of these, jump through several flaming hoops on their website to obtain a login, then validate each and every one of them separately. For anyone who hasn't done so, and this should be a requirement for anyone in ARIN's web coding group, go to the ARIN page and try to set up authentication for an existing POC for yourself that you didn't know existed. It isn't exactly fun, nor quick, nor intuitive. I haven't needed to resort to angry phone calls, but have generally been able to resolve this by email. Ignore the auto-response that suggests you do this yourself on the ARIN website, unless you like pain. -- Jay Hennigan | CCIE #7880 | j...@impulse.net | www.impulse.net Voice +1.805.884.6323 | Fax +1.805.880.1523 | WB6RDV Chief Network Architect | Impulse Advanced Communications ___ 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.
Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-12: Anti-hijack Policy
On 6/6/14, 1:09 PM, Bill Buhler wrote: Seconded, must doesn't hurt the meaning, and is firmer. -Original Message- From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of Leif Sawyer Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 2:05 PM To: David Farmer; Kevin Kargel; arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-12: Anti-hijack Policy On 6/6/14, 11:04 , David Farmer wrote: [...]Given the should is immediately followed by a conditional unless the intent seems sufficiently clear, the intent is to create a special-case exception, and should seems appropriate. Furthermore, must or shall followed by unless seemed an awkward way to create such an exception. Staff generally agrees that in most cases for policy must is preferred and it is best to avoid should in most cases. However, in the sentence above the intent seem clear enough and should seems appropriate in that particular case. Unfortunately, that still has indirect parsing issues. 1. You should eat an ice-cream cone, unless you ate a taco. [and then you shouldn't...but you still could] 2. You must eat an ice-cream cone, unless you ate a taco. [ sorry, no ice-cream for you, taco-eater. You get a churro instead. ] No. 1. Ice cream recommended but optional in all cases, not recommended but permissible for taco-eaters. 2. Ice cream mandatory for non-taco-eaters, optional for taco-eaters. What you are perhaps looking for is: 3. If you ate a taco, you must not eat an ice-cream cone, else you must eat an ice-cream cone. ___ 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.
Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-12: Anti-hijack Policy
On 5/31/14, 2:55 PM, David Farmer wrote: Therefore, putting all the suggesting together, here is text for the Editorial Change I'm proposing at the PPC next week. If an organization requires more resource resources than stipulated by the applicable minimum allocation sizes size in force at the time of their request, their experimental documentation should have request must clearly described describe and justified justify why this a larger allocation is required. An organization is a singular entity without gender. Pronoun should match. (its, not their). Also, while the request for the documentation isn't experimental, the allocation is. Thus: If an organization requires more resources than stipulated by the applicable minimum allocation size in force at the time of its request, the request must clearly describe and justify why a larger allocation is required. ___ 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.
