I am out of the office this week and will not be checking email. Please
contact Troy Miller for assistance..
Thank you for contacting me, and have a great day.
___
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public
Hi Scott,
Thank you for the reply. Please allow me to explain why I keep
repeating that ARIN is not a regulator. I believe ARIN only
exists to serve the network operator community. It has been
tasked to do so via the IETF.
You wrote:
It doesn't blindly register any request it receives.
I
-Original Message-
From: David Huberman [mailto:david.huber...@microsoft.com]
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 10:22 AM
With an exhausted IPv4 pool, there are no pool limitations at the time
of allocation as there are no allocations. ARIN's role in IPv4 is primarily
the third goal
On Apr 4, 2014, at 11:21 AM, David Huberman david.huber...@microsoft.com
wrote:
Today, however, RFC2050 has been deprecated by RFC7020. RFC7020
lays out three primary goals:
- Allocation Pool Management
- Hierarchical Allocation
- Registry Accuracy
...
That's why I advocate removing
David is right that when he advocates removing needs-basis from transfers in a
post- exhaustion world. However, the only difference between then and now is
that ARIN probably has a larger unallocated IPv4 then it will after Exhaustion.
The size of what ARIN has in its unallocated pool really
If an org with no resources applies they should at least be able to get the
minimum which has been set by this community which I think is currently at a
/22. Always!
If an org wants larger than a /22 they need to be able to demonstrate in a
reasonable way that they are a larger org with a
We are a tiny org with a tiny network in relation to say a fortune 1000
company. We should never be approved for a /8 or a /16 or some resource that
is way larger than we are.
We should however, be approved for resources that match our size. I think we
are the ones who should determine if
On 14-04-04 03:44 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Apr 4, 2014, at 11:00 AM, Steven Ryerse srye...@eclipse-networks.com wrote:
If an org with no resources applies they should at least be able to get the
minimum which has been set by this community which I think is currently at a
/22. Always!
Same, +1.
Which isn't Section 11 a better place to address this?
Best,
-M
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 1:55 PM, David Huberman
david.huber...@microsoft.com javascript:; wrote:
Support in principle, strongly opposed as written.
ARIN is a registry, not a regulator. Networks with global reach
Oops, buffer overflow. Wrong thread. Simply, +1 for this thread.
On Friday, April 4, 2014, Martin Hannigan hanni...@gmail.com wrote:
Same, +1.
Which isn't Section 11 a better place to address this?
Best,
-M
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 1:55 PM, David Huberman
Hi David,
There is problem here. the buyer who is interested in our first /16 want
us to update ARIN whois records before we sell it to the buyer.we have
brought the company X and this is the reason why we ask ARIN if ARIN could
do the 8.2 transfer first then followed by the 8.3 transfer
On Apr 5, 2014, at 12:36 AM, xiaofan yang
nikiyan...@gmail.commailto:nikiyan...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi John
Your MA transfer may indeed be rejected if you do not have adequate
documentation; see my prior email regarding list of acceptable documents.
As refer to your list of acceptable
You wrote: the buyer who is interested in our first /16 want us to update
ARIN whois records before we sell it to the buyer.
Perhaps if you solve that problem with your buyer, the rest of your issues
become moot. ARIN policy and procedure can only go so far. Private parties
have to put
13 matches
Mail list logo
