I support this proposal
David R Huberman
Microsoft Corporation
Senior IT/OPS Program Manager (GFS)
From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net on behalf of Owen
DeLong o...@delong.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 10:58:58 AM
To: pol...@arin.net;
For the thread (subject changed) here is what you mean?
From the Afrinic.net website..
9.5 Validity of an assignment Assignments remain valid as long as the
original criteria on which the assignment was based are still in place
and the assignment is registered in the AfriNIC whois database.
Hi,
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Michael Peddemors
mich...@linuxmagic.com wrote:
For the thread (subject changed) here is what you mean?
no, that's just preamble.
From the Afrinic.net website..
9.5 Validity of an assignment Assignments remain valid as long as the
original criteria
Unfortunately, Mr McTim, this won't work here :( We have tremendously large
service providers who don't have up-to-date SWIP records as a function of
changes ARIN has made to software. The providers are experiencing an inability
to get changes made internally to adjust to ARIN's changes. This
Based on Jeffrey Lyon's jeffrey.l...@blacklotus.net email regarding
utilization requirements, I've put together a draft proposal:
---
Template: ARIN-POLICY-PROPOSAL-TEMPLATE-3.0
1. Policy Proposal Name: Change Utilization Requirements from
last-allocation to total-aggregate
On 14-05-02 11:22 AM, Leif Sawyer wrote:
5. Policy statement:
Section 4.2.4.1- Change text to read:
ISPs must have efficiently utilized all previous allocations,
in
aggregate, to at least 80% in order to receive additional space.
This
To clarify my concern about 4.5 requests, my intent is that each
discrete network be evaluated independently, but in aggregate, when
requesting space. For instance, Company A has Network X and Network Y.
The aggregate utilization of Network X is 80% and the aggregate
utilization of Network Y is
-Original Message-
From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On
Behalf Of Jeffrey Lyon
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 7:49 AM
Friends, Colleagues,
A couple of years ago I brought up an issue I had run into where the
utilization requirement for new
Robert,
Looks like you have it.
Best,
Martin
On Friday, May 2, 2014, Cleary, Robert K robert.cle...@bankofamerica.com
wrote:
Hi,
I would like the ability to post to the list. My email address is
On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Leif Sawyer lsaw...@gci.com wrote:
On behalf of myself, I support this proposal.
On behalf of my company, which finds itself in the position
of 8 large allocations above 93% and 1 small allocation below the 80% mark,
I support this proposal.
I believe there
On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 7:33 PM, John Santos j...@egh.com wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2014, Jimmy Hess wrote:
I think 95% is too high, if the previous example of 3 /24's at 100% and
1 /24 at 75% is realistic. That works out to
On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Martin Hannigan hanni...@gmail.com wrote:
All,
Why should entities get a break on a standard in existence and applied to all
for years?
And why is tbe aggregate, in examples given, broken? ARIN already applies
that to some applicants.
No support.
On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Martin Hannigan hanni...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes it is. Are you expecting such a change to happen before or after? The
recent fury of v4 policy seems geared towards sooner. I think a moratorium
is in order except for transfer related policy at this juncture.
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 8:04 PM, Jeffrey Lyon
jeffrey.l...@blacklotus.net wrote:
Jimmy,
I would not support scaling this beyond 80% except at the larger
allocation levels (eg. perhaps /17 and shorter, aggregate).
The essence of it is, that the 80% utilization criterion is ancient,
and before
It would seem so.
Jeff
On May 3, 2014 10:38 AM, Martin Hannigan hanni...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, May 2, 2014, Jeffrey Lyon jeffrey.l...@blacklotus.net wrote:
On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Martin Hannigan hanni...@gmail.com
wrote:
Jeffrey,
Let's be clear without political
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Brett Frankenberger
rbf+arin-p...@panix.com wrote:
Why is it not OK to get more space when you have an unused /21 that
is not adjacent to your other space, but it's OK to get more space if
you have an unused /21 hidden inside a /16?
I support the proposal.
You
16 matches
Mail list logo
