On 4/28/2014 8:58 PM, Derek Calanchini wrote:
*Is there anything I can do to speed this along? Seriously, I will do
authoring, leg work, make calls...whatever it takes!*
How about: submit a plan for multihoming and a request for a /22 based
on your current usage?
Matthew Kaufman
On Apr 28, 2014, at 11:26 PM, Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at wrote:
Dual-home with a provider with no term commitment. No matter how painful that
is, it'll be less painful than a policy change.
Matthew -
One point to keep in mind is that all of these policies will remain in effect
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Derek Calanchini der...@cnets.net wrote:
Hello all, I will be brief as possible. I need assistance with either
requesting a policy change or an appeal/exception to current policy.
snip
I feel like I am being penalized for using my IP's efficiently!! As
Hi John,
Couple of questions. could the solution for staff effort be solved more
directly by modifying the protocol that establishes team testing for each
and every request through exhaustion? I wonder about the need for these
extraordinary measures.
Is /16 small? Did you consider a
Thank you, John.
I proposed this policy change and support it.
As has been pointed out, nothing changes upon exhaust that would affect the
problems presented here.
If you are not multihomed, whether we have exhausted or not, you can not
acquire these addresses through the transfer market.
For
Hi Bill,
I will answer as the author.
I chose /16 as a starting point for discussion, at least, because my experience
as a broker demonstrates a distinction in buyers and sellers around that size.
I suppose we could go by ARIN billing policy which has different definitions,
but I think a /16 is
Proposal 207 is novel, but it is meant strictly for those looking to
'transition' to IPv6, so in this case he might not qualify..
I don't think that 207 is enough yet, and while on it's own I could
normally support it except for one thing.. 30 days is a little to short
of time for smaller
How about an apolitical last /N policy?
Section N Last IPv4 Addresses Available in Region
Upon receipt of a /11 or up to an equivalent from the IANA, ARIN will
set that prefix, aggregate or longer equivalent aside until a /11 of
inventory is reached and for assignment of a /24 to all existing
Sure, but sending it in without prior discussion will result in
another bride of Frankenstein.
One way to do this in a simple and parse-able way could be to change
the minimum allocation unit in 4.2.1.5 from the reference to a /22 to
a /24.
Best,
-M
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 11:31 PM,
I also missed one after thinking about it even more. Change the /20
reference to a /24 as well. guess that's two. Ooops. One could be
tempted to completely rewrite. I wouldn't try it.
Best,
-M
___
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are
In general, I think removing needs basis is an utterly bad idea.
However, if we were to do a 1 year trial at /20, to gather data and evaluate
the actual impacts of such a policy, I would consider that acceptable.
+ Does it actually lead to increased whois accuracy as proclaimed
When I studied it for ARIN, 87% of the v4 address space ARIN issued over a 2
year period went to ELEVEN companies.
I'm not speaking directly to prop 204, but in general: policy has favored big
guys at the gross expense of small guys for 15 years. It's injust. And the
math (at least in the
On 14-04-29 10:28 AM, David Huberman wrote:
When I studied it for ARIN, 87% of the v4 address space ARIN issued over
a 2 year period went to ELEVEN companies.
I’m not speaking directly to prop 204, but in general: policy has
favored big guys at the gross expense of small guys for 15 years.
A couple of recent threads here and my general sense of the (lack of) urgency
around IPv6 deployment has made me wonder whether setting aside a /10 under
NRPM 4.10 - Dedicated IPv4 block to facilitate IPv6 Deployment - is really
going to be enough. I was looking at Geoff Huston's graphs
Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-3.0
1. Policy Proposal Name: Reduce all Minimum Allocation/Assignment
units to /24
2. Proposal Originator
a. name: Owen DeLong
b. email: o...@delong.com
c. telephone:
On 4/29/2014 10:54 AM, Bill Owens wrote:
A couple of recent threads here and my general sense of the (lack of) urgency
around IPv6 deployment has made me wonder whether setting aside a /10 under
NRPM 4.10 - Dedicated IPv4 block to facilitate IPv6 Deployment - is really
going to be enough. I
Looks good.
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-3.0
1. Policy Proposal Name: Reduce all Minimum Allocation/Assignment units to
/24
2. Proposal Originator
a. name: Owen DeLong
b. email: o...@delong.com
c. telephone:
I posit that IP addresses are most efficient when in use on networks and
not when in inventory at an RIR.
My android sent this.
On Apr 29, 2014 9:32 AM, Martin Hannigan hanni...@gmail.com wrote:
How about an apolitical last /N policy?
Section N Last IPv4 Addresses Available in Region
I support this.
A
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 10:58:58AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-3.0
1. Policy Proposal Name: Reduce all Minimum Allocation/Assignment
units to /24
2. Proposal Originator
a. name: Owen DeLong
I'd expect the Quick jump from 1.34 to 1.00 with the Cloudflare /12 and the
Akamai /10 to have caused enough panic as is. I'd support reserving the IANA
recovered address pool for that, but not current available IPv4 space.
Cordially Yours,
Skylar MacMinn
www.crissic.net
Crissic Solutions, LLC
I think the a reserved /11 policy for all and from the IANA frags and
eleasing this back to the free pool would provide for the same
function.
Delete it and return it to the pool.
Best,
-M
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Bill Owens ow...@nysernet.org wrote:
A couple of recent threads here
/20140429/ae7baf44/attachment-0001.html
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL:
http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 11:13:26AM -0700, Andrew Dul wrote:
Policy proposal 207, suggests that we add to the existing /10 reserved
pool with the fragments that we will get back from IANA shortly. It
appears ARIN will received somewhere between a /11 and /10 equivalent
when the fragments are
I'm in support of this.
Regards,
Jose Alvarado
Sr Engineering Specialist, | Technology Operations, Internet Security
|Customer Operations | * Tel: 416.642.4036 | *Cell: 416.315.4364| * email:
jose.alvar...@allstream.commailto:jose.alvar...@allstream.com
MTS Allstream Inc
[sig8]
From:
Also on this, will there be any expected timeframe when the actual policy be
publicly announced so that some of our pending customers whom are seeking to go
directly to ARIN to request IP addresses can be directed to do so?
Thanks
Jose Alvarado
Sr Engineering Specialist, | Technology
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
1. Policy Proposal Name: Reduce all Minimum Allocation/Assignment units to
/24
5. Policy statement:
Change the minimum allocation and assignment unit for all IPv4 single and
multi homed instances to /20. This would include:
Support as well.
Paul Emmons
From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On
Behalf Of Owen DeLong
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 12:59 PM
To: pol...@arin.net; ARIN PPML (p...@arin.net)
Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Reduce all Minimum
Allocation/Assignment
And I support.. if it wasn't clear..
I mentioned to the author that if this is tough to swallow, we should at
least go down to a /22 everywhere..
(We have an application going in as well for space, and we would be
returning 3 /24's back upstream on acceptance as well, it would be nicer
if we
Support.
Let's make sure we get the end-user policy as well, though. (Per Derek's email)
From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf
Of Owen DeLong
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 9:59 AM
To: pol...@arin.net; ARIN PPML (p...@arin.net)
Subject: [arin-ppml]
Derek,
Just FYI, this is something that you might consider being 'fast tracked'
by the supporters..
NANOG 61 is traveling to Bellevue, Washington for the second time!
,
NANOG 61 takes place on June 2-4, 2014 and will offer a great
opportunity to network with colleagues, freshen-up
Yes I meant 61, sorry
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 29, 2014, at 7:07 PM, Michael Peddemors mich...@linuxmagic.com
wrote:
Derek,
Just FYI, this is something that you might consider being 'fast tracked'
by the supporters..
NANOG 61 is traveling to Bellevue, Washington for the second time!
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
I support the proposed change as written.
In addition, since Multihomed ISPs no longer have a different minimum
allocation, I suggestremoving the distinction between Multihomed
and non-Multihomed ISPs:
o 4.2.1.5
Owens change is simple and fast. Meddling beyond that is asking for
trouble. It's a no op. Leave it alone.
Bring that to the PPC at NANOG and this is dead.
On Tuesday, April 29, 2014, Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Owen DeLong
33 matches
Mail list logo
