There has not been a lot of feedback on this proposal. It would be nice to have
more input from a broader cross-section of the community.
At present, I am leaning towards recommending that we abandon this proposal for
lack of support by the community. If you support this action, please speak
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 1:27 PM, David Huberman
david.huber...@microsoft.com wrote:
Hello,
As the author, I proposed this policy because it is not ARIN's role to
artificially regulate minimum block sizes. I feel this is especially in a
post-exhaustion world, which is very quickly coming.
Hello,
As the author, I proposed this policy because it is not ARIN's role to
artificially regulate minimum block sizes. I feel this is especially in a
post-exhaustion world, which is very quickly coming.
The economics of routing are the same today as they were 14 years ago when Bill
Hi Scott,
If I understand your argument - and I'm not sure I do, sorry - you're saying
that it's good to have a policy that SPs can point to and say, no, you can't
take that /32 we assigned to you with you? If that's what you're arguing,
then why is a /24 any different than a /32? We see /24s
I'm thinking about things like a lawsuit where the plaintiff gets awarded
all of the defendant's assets in question, and the plaintiff then asks
ARIN to transfer the IPv4 defendant's /32 to them. If ARIN simply doesn't
transfer /32s, then they can tell the judge I'm sorry, but we just can't
do
But regardless of the legal piece, I see no upside, and quite a bit of
downside, to allowing IPv4 /32 transfers.
Please articulate the quite a bit of downside. If we ignore the legal piece
of your argument, as you said to, what are the problems with /32 transfers to
the technical operations
On Mar 19, 2014, at 7:22 PM, Scott Leibrand scottleibr...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm thinking about things like a lawsuit where the plaintiff gets awarded all
of the defendant's assets in question, and the plaintiff then asks ARIN to
transfer the IPv4 defendant's /32 to them.
When that has
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
There has not been a lot of feedback on this proposal. It would be nice to
have more input from a broader cross-section of the community.
At present, I am leaning towards recommending that we abandon this
proposal for lack
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 11:34 AM, David Huberman
david.huber...@microsoft.com wrote:
But regardless of the legal piece, I see no upside, and quite a bit of
downside, to allowing IPv4 /32 transfers.
Please articulate the quite a bit of downside. If we ignore the legal
piece of your
Personally, not sure if we should allow any transfer in a world of
diminishing resources, use it or loose it..
But I speak definitely in favor of NOT allowing transfers less than /24,
and since SWIP isn't allowed for /32 right now... (correct?)
I suggest no smaller than a /29
On 14-03-19
Hi Scott,
Thanks for the great reply. I agree with a lot of what you are saying.
I guess I'm stuck on the idea that this doesn't belong in ARIN policy. As you
well note, ARIN policy is reflecting what has been the operational reality for
a while now. And as you state, we could keep changing
11 matches
Mail list logo
