On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 8:16 AM, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote:
So, to start the discussion, what is the underlying need for an IPv4
transfer policy, and why?
Hi John,
My knee-jerk response is that there are two distinct needs for the
existence of a transfer policy.
Need #1: So that
Hi
Remove need based potentially unify a global transfer policy since APNIC
and RIPE has already done so.
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Michael Richardson m...@sandelman.ca wrote:
My opinion is that once the pool is empty, that ARIN should get out of any
IPv4 needs analysis and just leave
On Jun 5, 2015, at 1:25 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
...
Fairness. Free trade is and must be a two-way street. Don't have that
if we let someone pay lip service to free trade and then act as a
proxy for a third party who's gaming the system.
Bill -
Could you elaborate? A
On Jun 5, 2015, at 1:36 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
So you can tell us the draft exceeds policy and impinges on ARIN
business procedure? You've suckered folks into that game one too many
times. Tell me the words you'd accept as requiring transfer
reciprocity and compatibility go
Tell me the words you'd accept as requiring transfer reciprocity and
compatibility go beyond lip service and I'll advance those words. Else
suffer the continued wagging of my finger.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
Well, now, I think that's a bit too much participation to ask of ARIN's
president. I
+1
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: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net]
On Jun 5, 2015, at 8:52 AM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 8:16 AM, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote:
So, to start the discussion, what is the underlying need for an IPv4
transfer policy, and why?
Hi John,
My knee-jerk response is that there are two
On Jun 5, 2015, at 12:58 PM, Rudolph Daniel rudi.dan...@gmail.com wrote:
...
Does the proposed IANA transition change the landscape or has potential to
change the current status?
Excellent question (although it would be good to get back to policy development
on the PPML list at some point…)
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Richard J. Letts rjle...@uw.edu wrote:
If that is the case, then ARIN/We should update inter-RIR policies to only
allow transfers to registries that have substantially similar transfer
policies.
Hi Richard,
The plain language of the transfer policies already
On Jun 5, 2015, at 12:52 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
Reciprocity. It must not be practical to transfer addresses to a
registry where registrants of record are not permitted to transfer
addresses from the registry. Not just directly but through
second-order activity too. E.g. I
If that is the case, then ARIN/We should update inter-RIR policies to only
allow transfers to registries that have substantially similar transfer
policies. This does not require complete blobal co-ordination, but it will
establish areas where co-operating RIRs get access to free markets and
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Mike Burns m...@iptrading.com wrote:
Put simply: APNIC NIRs would have to comply with any global transfer policy
as well even as ARIN ISPs are understood to be the direct customer instead.
What about when the NIR and RIR allow for outgoing transfers but a
On Jun 5, 2015, at 9:50 AM, Michael Richardson m...@sandelman.ca wrote:
... I am concerned
about ARIN's long-term viability, given that many entities should get a
generous IPv6 allocation and not return for more for years to decades.
I'd love to read a white paper with a title like:
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Mike Burns m...@iptrading.com wrote:
I do object to John Curran writing a policy proposal to be submitted to the
community under another person’s name.
It just seems wrong to me but I could be alone in that thought.
Hi Mike,
I'm of two minds about it myself.
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 2:01 PM, Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at wrote:
On 6/5/2015 9:52 AM, William Herrin wrote:
Roger. Then I'd also add:
Reciprocity. It must not be practical to transfer addresses to a
registry where registrants of record are not permitted to transfer
addresses from
Mike,
If you object, I'm sure an AC member can be found to craft some text, and
get staff and legal assessment.
FWIW, if you like this restriction, I think the rjletts approach catches it
all:
If target registry does not allow transfers out of their RIR then
reject transfer to target registry
Hi Mike,
I'm of two minds about it myself. On the one hand, ARIN employees aren't
supposed to be pushing their own policy. Too much risk of the organization
folding in on itself to the exclusion of outside input.
On the other hand, we've written a lot of crap policy for lack of a
professional
On Jun 5, 2015, at 3:39 PM, William Herrin
b...@herrin.usmailto:b...@herrin.us wrote:
...
Call it the transfer GPL: I ask that the receipient registry's
outbound transfer policy be little more onerous than our own, but at
the same time sufficiently diligent as to prevent addresses from
eventually
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 2:04 PM, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote:
On Jun 5, 2015, at 1:36 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
So you can tell us the draft exceeds policy and impinges on ARIN
business procedure? You've suckered folks into that game one too many
times. Tell me the words
Hi Jason,
I do object to John Curran writing a policy proposal to be submitted to the
community under another person’s name.
It just seems wrong to me but I could be alone in that thought.
Regards,
Mike
From: Jason Schiller [mailto:jschil...@google.com]
Sent: Friday, June 05,
On 6/5/2015 5:16 AM, John Curran wrote:
Our current needs-based IPv4 transfer policy is basically derived
from the IPv4
allocation policy, and the assumption that the registry should
determine those
parties who should be issued IPv4 address space. This is very
reasonable
On Jun 5, 2015, at 3:36 PM, Mike Burns
m...@iptrading.commailto:m...@iptrading.com wrote:
I do object to John Curran writing a policy proposal to be submitted to the
community under another person’s name.
It just seems wrong to me but I could be alone in that thought.
Mike -
ARIN staff has
On 6/5/2015 9:52 AM, William Herrin wrote:
Roger. Then I'd also add:
Reciprocity. It must not be practical to transfer addresses to a
registry where registrants of record are not permitted to transfer
addresses from the registry. Not just directly but through
second-order activity too. E.g. I
23 matches
Mail list logo
