Support. We are seeing IPv4 buyers approach us for small blocks due to an
inability to get them from upstream providers.
Mike Burns
IPTrading.com
From: Steven Ryerse
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 5:35 PM
To: pol...@arin.net ; mailto:p...@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Support
Stuart Sheldon
ACT USA
AS22937
On 04/30/2014 07:51 AM, Paul S. wrote:
Support.
On 4/30/2014 ?? 11:22, Tom Coffeen wrote:
Support.
*---*
*Tom Coffeen*
IPv6 Evangelist
Infoblox | Business Agility through Network
This seems to me like a reasonable operational practice for ARIN to use
to help prevent a run on the remaining free pool from organizations with
large quantities of existing space.
Are you trying to change this before free pool runout, or are you concerned
with making needs justification a bit
Scott,
In my mind this does not have anything to do with free pool or
transfers, rather it is a measure to save time both for the applicant
and ARIN and to fix a disparity between how small organizations
request space versus large. Right now it is easier for organizations
with large allocations
Scott,
Also, we're already in Phase 4, so isn't it fair to say that the free
pool is essentially exhausted?
Thanks, Jeff
On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Scott Leibrand scottleibr...@gmail.com wrote:
This seems to me like a reasonable operational practice for ARIN to use to
help prevent a run
Jeffrey,
While the idea is great, isn't ARIN supposed to already be implementing
this in one way?
i.e: You get one allocation, and until you can show 80% usage --
applying again generally does not get you anywhere.
Going by this, shouldn't all previous allocs (aggregated / per
No, but I think it will be before any new policy proposal moving at normal
speed takes effect. (The /24 minimum allocation size might take effect before
then. If so, that will probably accelerate runout further.)
If you think (as I do) that this policy change would still be useful after
runout
Paul,
The problem I see is in the manner of calculation. Right now each and
every allocation must be individually utilized at 80%. This means I
can have 3 x /22 utilized at 100% and 1 x /22 at 79% and would not be
eligible for more space where an organization with 80% utilization on
a single /20
Scott,
How do we define free pool exhaustion? We're already at 1 x /8 and
RIPE has already stopped issuing new IPv4 space (not sure what APNIC
et al are up to) but the situation is dire enough that I feel we
should consider ourselves at the exhaustion point.
Thanks, Jeff
On Thu, May 1, 2014 at
I'd support this proposal being implemented post runout. Otherwise,
opposed. This is a pass on the needs test that the rest of us have been
subject to. Do away with all need, not small bits.
Best,
-M
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Scott Leibrand
scottleibr...@gmail.comjavascript:;
wrote:
Martin,
I disagree that this proposal would in any way eliminate needs basis.
The intent is to make sure that all allocations are considered in
aggregate so that those requesting space only have to have 80%
utilization vs. 90%+ that happens in many cases where allocations are
considered
I'd support this proposal being implemented post runout. Otherwise,
opposed. This is a pass on the needs test that the rest of us have been
subject to. Do away with all need, not small bits.
Best,
-M
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Scott Leibrand
scottleibr...@gmail.comjavascript:;
wrote:
The analysis by David is, in my opinion, correct. This policy proposal is
receiving what in my experience is an unprecedented amount of community
support, _AS_WRITTEN_. Changes to the text require support be reiterated,
which might be unwanted and harmful to the text speed of the process.
Concur.
The multi-homing concern is worthy of discussion and I or another AC member
would be happy to help craft a subsequent policy proposal if members of the
community are so interested.
bd
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 1:22 PM, John Springer sprin...@inlandnet.comwrote:
The analysis by David
Bill Darte and myself will be the Sheppard's for this proposal. At this time we
are working on the policy changes and vetting
them against the text of the NRPM.
I would appreciate feedback in regards to section 4.9 which is not mentioned in
the current policy text but should probably be
I would continue to support with 4.9 / 4.9.1 either deleted or ammended
with /22 replaced with /24.
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Kevin Blumberg kev...@thewire.ca wrote:
Bill Darte and myself will be the Sheppard's for this proposal. At this
time we are working on the policy changes and
Support.
4.9/4.9.1 could be deleted; ARIN would then need no special handling for that
part of the region.
Richard Letts
Network Operations Center Manager
UW Information Technology
Mail: Box 354840
Street: 4545 15th Ave NE, Seattle, WA, 98105
206.685.1699 | mobile 206.790.5837
Amen! ARIN's raison d'être is to allocate resources.
Steven Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338
770.656.1460 - Cell
770.399.9099- Office
℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc.
Conquering Complex Networks℠
-Original Message-
From:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 1:35 AM, John Springer sprin...@inlandnet.com wrote:
ARIN-prop-204 Removing Needs Test from Small IPv4 Transfers
Policy statement:
Change the language in NRPM 8.3 after Conditions on the recipient of the
transfer: from The recipient must demonstrate the need for up to
I agree with Bill. It might be appropriate to drop needs testing for
small allocations simply because it is not worth the effort, but I don't
see a /16 as being small. Something in the range of /24 to /20 would
be better.
Another idea to ponder would be instead of dropping the need
On 14-04-30 03:04 PM, John Santos wrote:
Another idea to ponder would be instead of dropping the need requirement,
we adopt a presumption of good faith for small allocations. ARIN would
simply take the word of the requester or recipient for small allocations
or transfers, but if it was later
How would we go about assessing whether such changes prove harmful or
helpful? What metrics does ARIN collect under this policy which can be
analyzed and presented here so we can consider expanding it to larger
transfers? Does no justification mean no documentation?
What makes you think /16 is
Not in favor. Post exhaustion perhaps.
On Tuesday, April 29, 2014, John Springer sprin...@inlandnet.com wrote:
Hi All,
The following timely policy proposal is presented for your consideration,
discussion and comment. Will you please comment?
As always, expressions of support or
How would we go about assessing whether such changes prove harmful or
helpful? What metrics does ARIN collect under this policy which can be
analyzed and presented here so we can consider expanding it to larger
transfers? Does no justification mean no documentation?
What makes you think /16 is
Another idea to ponder would be instead of dropping the need requirement,
we adopt a presumption of good faith for small allocations. ARIN would
simply take the word of the requester or recipient for small allocations
or transfers, but if it was later discovered the recipient was acting in
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 18:44:04 -0400
From: Martin Hannigan hanni...@gmail.com
To: John Springer sprin...@inlandnet.com
Cc: "arin-ppml@arin.net" arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-204 Removing Needs Test from Small
IPv4 Transfers (fwd)
Message-ID:
Of course you would say that. (Smiley).
You think it accelerates exhaustion. Trust me, it needs no help. Sit back and
let real stakeholders define our own destiny please.
Best,
-M
On Apr 30, 2014, at 19:20, sandrabr...@ipv4marketgroup.com wrote:
sigimg0
Message: 4
Date:
I would like to address Mr. Herrin's questions below.
--
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 17:39:03 -0400
From: William Herrin b...@herrin.us
To: John Springer sprin...@inlandnet.com
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-204 Removing Needs Test from
On 4/30/2014 1:55 PM, sandrabr...@ipv4marketgroup.com wrote:
BUT: With the limitation of the transfer size to a /16 or smaller, it
would take a lot of transfers to hoard. It would take 256 transfers to
stockpile a /8. This is the 2nd means to prevent hoarding. Most
companies wanting that
On Apr 30, 2014, at 4:45 PM, Andrew Dul andrew@quark.net wrote:
On 4/30/2014 1:55 PM, sandrabr...@ipv4marketgroup.com wrote:
BUT: With the limitation of the transfer size to a /16 or smaller, it
would take a lot of transfers to hoard. It would take 256 transfers to
stockpile a /8.
Hi Andrew,
I don't understand what the problem is.
Are you saying that a recipient who wanted more than a /16 but was unwilling
to demonstrate need would create separate entities?
Remember only one transfer per year.
Regards
Mike
- Original Message -
From: Andrew Dul
Martin:
I think making transfers of already allocated IP's easier, makes the
free pool last longer. This decelerates, not accelerates, exhaustion.
The impact will probably be slight because the buyers, the transferors,
are the medium to little guys, not David's 11 who are getting the vast
On 4/30/2014 4:50 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote:
On Apr 30, 2014, at 4:45 PM, Andrew Dul andrew@quark.net wrote:
On 4/30/2014 1:55 PM, sandrabr...@ipv4marketgroup.com wrote:
BUT: With the limitation of the transfer size to a /16 or smaller, it
would take a lot of transfers to hoard. It would
On 4/30/2014 4:56 PM, Mike Burns wrote:
Hi Andrew,
I don't understand what the problem is.
Are you saying that a recipient who wanted more than a /16 but was
unwilling to demonstrate need would create separate entities?
Separate entities I don't believe are needed, just slice up the block in
Hi,
On Apr 30, 2014, at 2:00 PM, Steven Ryerse srye...@eclipse-networks.com wrote:
Amen! ARIN's raison d'être is to allocate resources.
That is part of ARIN's reason to exist, one that becomes significantly less
relevant as the free pool exhausts.
ARIN also exists to maintain an accurate
[apologies if duplicate -- mail client issues :(]
Hi,
On Apr 30, 2014, at 2:00 PM, Steven Ryerse srye...@eclipse-networks.com wrote:
Amen! ARIN's raison d'être is to allocate resources.
That is part of ARIN's reason to exist, one that becomes significantly less
relevant as the free pool
Hi Bill and John,
Thank you for the thoughtful responses. As a purely process note, please
allow me to point out that what we have here, ARIN-prop-204, is merely a
policy proposal. I will do my best to answer comments and questions posed
inline, but they appear to relate to later steps in the
Sandra,
The goal isn't to extend the free pool. There is no goal. We'll exhaust
based on current policy. This is bad policy that benefits few.
PLease elaborate on your questions about recent assignments. Happy to
educate you.
Best,
-M
On Wednesday, April 30, 2014,
On 14-04-30 05:11 PM, David Conrad wrote:
ARIN also exists to maintain an accurate registry. This reason becomes
significantly more important both as the free pool exhausts and afterwards.
It is this area I would like to see some new changes, it is impossible
to accomplish this, if there is
Support - I agree with Sandra Brown.
_
Hikyu Lee
President
Softlinx, Inc.
Work: +1.978.881.0561
Mobile: +1.978.502.4283
Email: h...@softlinx.com
___
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy
On 4/30/2014 6:40 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote:
On Apr 30, 2014, at 5:04 PM, Andrew Dul andrew@quark.net
mailto:andrew@quark.net wrote:
On 4/30/2014 4:50 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote:
On Apr 30, 2014, at 4:45 PM, Andrew Dul andrew@quark.net wrote:
On 4/30/2014 1:55 PM,
Hi Andrew,
I had a similar question. 8.3 says the minimum transfer is /24. ARIN's initial
ISP minimum allocation is a /20. If a new ISP wants to buy just a /24, which
minimum would apply?
We called ARIN today and found out that section 4 prevails and the new ISP
could not purchase a /24 even
Hi Bill,
Sorry for not answering in order.
On Tue, 29 Apr 2014, Bill Darte wrote:
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
43 matches
Mail list logo
