On Sep 3, 2014, at 1:09 AM, Derek Calanchini der...@cnets.net wrote:
John,
That is GREAT NEWS! Given that, there will be no need to fudge...When I say
fudge, I manage my IP's very tightly right now...I have been using the same 4
class c's for almost 15 years. I could easily, legitimately
I've been on projects extensively the last month and a half and only now are
getting back to this proposal. Gary, I take your comment below to mean that you
are not in favor of making the allocation fair to small organizations. I think
there has been a consensus building that it is more
I agree of course we should allocate small blocks as well. It seems like a no
brainer that we wouldn't want to also allocate all those small /24 block
instead of letting ipv4 run out and nobody gets to use them.
Steven Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338
Steven, many of your statements are patently false.
First of all, the current allocation/assignment process is fair. Everyone is
subject to the same policies and it is quite easy for small organizations to
obtain IP space under the existing process. I have obtained legitimate
assignments for
On 7/23/14, 7:58, ARIN wrote:
On 17 July 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted ARIN-prop-210
Simplifying Minimum Allocations and Assignments as a Draft Policy.
Draft Policy ARIN-2014-18 is below and can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_18.html
You are encouraged
+1, I agree completely.
On 9/4/2014 午前 02:29, Seth Mattinen wrote:
On 7/23/14, 7:58, ARIN wrote:
On 17 July 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted ARIN-prop-210
Simplifying Minimum Allocations and Assignments as a Draft Policy.
Draft Policy ARIN-2014-18 is below and can be found at:
Possibility, but there are at least 4 places (I think) in current policy that
the Minimum is used and I wanted to make this a simple addition to the policy
without having to rewrite several sections. This is the easiest way I could
come up with to accomplish that. I would be fine with fixing
So Martin, let’s say the worst case that you bring up here happens. Would it
really be much of change from the current situation. Folks with legacy /24’s
sell them all the time, and I would point to the current experience in the RIPE
region where the world has not ended with the relaxation of
Hi Owen,
Needs testing is not merely a vehicle to save the remaining free pool. If
that were true, then we would not have subjected the transfer policies to
needs testing.
Prior to the 12 month waiting period for transfers which was implemented in
2012, needs testing was *indeed* required
I agree with Seth. Oppose ARIN-2014-18.
On Wed, 3 Sep 2014, Seth Mattinen wrote:
On 7/23/14, 7:58, ARIN wrote:
On 17 July 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted ARIN-prop-210
Simplifying Minimum Allocations and Assignments as a Draft Policy.
Draft Policy ARIN-2014-18 is below
Mike,
You misunderstood (or at least mischaracterized) my statement.
I did not say that needs testing doesn’t protect the free pool. Indeed, it is
one of the things that protects the free pool from being drained to the benefit
of organizations without need. However, what I said was that
On 9/3/14, 12:03, Martin Hannigan wrote:
So we should strand fragments and fail to adapt to the changing world
and rely on policy relics (multi homing) to deny people access to
address space?
I don't know what this means.
~Seth
___
PPML
You are
Owen, I appreciate the dialog but I think you are ignoring what goes on during
the allocation process for medium and larger organizations. You and I disagree
that the current policies are fair and I do not think I'm being irresponsible
to try and correct that! I've been told this is the proper
Why is it I keep seeing comments from various folks in this community
dismissing small organizations? I would ask you or anyone else to show me
where it says in ARINs Mission and founding documents that ARIN and this
Community is not supposed to also serve small organizations? If you can't
In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP), the ARIN
Advisory Council (AC) met on 28 August 2014.
The AC accepted the following Proposals as a Draft Policies:
ARIN-prop-211 New MDN allocation based on past utilization
ARIN-prop-212 Transfer policy slow start and
On 28 August 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted ARIN-prop-211
New MDN allocation based on past utilization as a Draft Policy.
Draft Policy ARIN-2014-19 is below and can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_19.html
You are encouraged to discuss the merits and your
On 28 August 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted ARIN-prop-212
Transfer policy slow start and simplified needs verification as a Draft
Policy.
Draft Policy ARIN-2014-20 is below and can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_20.html
You are encouraged to discuss the
Steven,
You are properly following the procedure just fine. Please don’t take my
comments personally, they were not intended as any form of personal slight.
This is the proper forum to effect policy change and I applaud your choosing to
participate in the process and bringing a proposal to try
On 9/3/14, 12:46, Steven Ryerse wrote:
Why is it I keep seeing comments from various folks in this community
dismissing small organizations? I would ask you or anyone else to show me
where it says in ARINs Mission and founding documents that ARIN and this
Community is not supposed to also
Owen, I think that over time the pendulum has swung so far from the days of Jon
Postel all the way over to the other side where it is deemed OK to shut
organizations out of resources. I'm trying to get the pendulum to swing a bit
back towards the center. Your argument boils down to it is
Fair enough, but you have ignored my challenge to show me where it says in
ARINs Mission and founding documents that ARIN and this Community is not
supposed to also serve small organizations. That is the foundation to this
discussion.
Steven Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite
What Seth said; oppose 2014-18
/RjL
On Wed, 3 Sep 2014, Seth Mattinen wrote:
On 7/23/14, 7:58, ARIN wrote:
On 17 July 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted
ARIN-prop-210 Simplifying Minimum Allocations and Assignments as a
Draft Policy.
Draft Policy ARIN-2014-18 is
Problem Statement:
New and small organizations are having a difficult time receiving resource
allocations from ARIN because of the economic, administrative and time
burdens of making their way through ARIN's needs testing process. For small
I haven't seen any evidence of this.
Owen,
I am such a company (small enough to not be able to get IP's) You
have to realize, tier one providers ARE not giving out ip blocks
anymore. The most you can get is a class C from very few
providersmost will only give out around 16 IP's.
Steven,
I didn't see a specific response to the specific question Owen asked.
Is it your argument that anyone with a single host should be able to
obtain a /24 per year? If so, then we can agree to disagree and move on.
If not, where, between 1 and 63 do you think that bar should be set? You
On Sep 3, 2014, at 4:05 PM, Derek Calanchini der...@cnets.net wrote:
Owen,
I am such a company (small enough to not be able to get IP's) You have to
realize, tier one providers ARE not giving out ip blocks anymore. The most
you can get is a class C from very few providersmost will
Owen, you act like 2014-18 is a big deal. Stand back a moment and look at the
forest instead of the trees. Nobody can corner the market on the new Minimum
of a /24 once every year. It would take me 4 years just to get 1024 addresses
and I'd have to pay for them so they are not free and of
On 9/3/14, 14:57, Steven Ryerse wrote:
Fair enough, but you have ignored my challenge to show me where it says in
ARINs Mission and founding documents that ARIN and this Community is not
supposed to also serve small organizations. That is the foundation to this
discussion.
ARIN serves
On 9/3/14, 18:17, Steven Ryerse wrote:
I would respectfully ask when considering 2014-18, everyone look at the actual
total effect of this proposed policy change. It is small and I get the sense
from some of the comments that folks don't realize that it would be small.
I disagree, thus
On 9/3/14, 16:05, Derek Calanchini wrote:
I can justify 1024 Ip's very easily, but I can't justify 2048 or
certainly not 4096. Were I multi-homed, I could get the 1024 IP's...to
me this doesn't make a lot of sense. It's far less likely for a small
organization to be multi-homed, yet the policy
On 14-09-03 06:32 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
On 9/3/14, 14:57, Steven Ryerse wrote:
Fair enough, but you have ignored my challenge to show me where it
says in ARINs Mission and founding documents that ARIN and this
Community is not supposed to also serve small organizations. That is
the
I don't see the flame. I asked Seth to make his comments reflect on service to
small organizations and he just did. I respect and appreciate his input and
yours.
Steven Ryerse
President
100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338
www.eclipse-networks.com
770.656.1460 - Cell
On Sep 3, 2014, at 6:17 PM, Steven Ryerse srye...@eclipse-networks.com wrote:
Owen, you act like 2014-18 is a big deal. Stand back a moment and look at
the forest instead of the trees. Nobody can corner the market on the new
Minimum of a /24 once every year. It would take me 4 years just
Thanks for that info as that is helpful to me to better understand the real
life effect of your position on this policy proposal.
Would you reconsider your support of 2014-18 if it was changed to leave the
current needs tests intact on Minimum allocation requests , but with the
understanding
Orphaned meaning there is only a contiguous block of the Minimum size the
existing policy dictates. As I understand it there are a lot of /24 blocks
that are non-contiguous and therefore could only be allocated by ARIN as a /24
and not as a single larger block such as a /23 or a /22, etc.
35 matches
Mail list logo
