Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-10: Minimum IPv6 Assignments

I suspect that is the intent, but as I read the policy, I believe the actual effect would be to cause the PAU to be counted as a /56 no matter how small a block you stuck your downstreams with. The current language already makes the PAU the smallest block you issue and requires you to justify

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks

On 9/26/2015 12:11 PM, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote: > Owen, > > On 25/09/15 20:24, Owen DeLong wrote: >> Please provide the metrics on which you base this assertion. How was >> RIPE-NCC accuracy measured prior to the policy change and to what >> extent was it improved as a result of this policy

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks

Owen, On 25/09/15 20:24, Owen DeLong wrote: Please provide the metrics on which you base this assertion. How was RIPE-NCC accuracy measured prior to the policy change and to what extent was it improved as a result of this policy change. What mechanism was used to determine that the measured

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks

I find Bill's proposal an interesting middle ground approach. I do not believe completely eliminating needs-based justification for addresses is the correct thing to do. -- Brian On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Bill Buhler wrote: > Having watched this for the last couple of

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks

I am OPPOSED to the proposal as written; I think it's a bridge too far. I would instead support a compromise as has been discussed of a total of one /22 per year per org-ID transferrable needs-free; I would recommend the hold period be two years from transfer date (ie, you may not transfer that

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-10: Minimum IPv6 Assignments

I do not think this policy is unsound or unfair, however I do not believe it will have the intended effect. Network Operators should have the ability to subnet their address blocks as they see fit without being penalized when they come back for more addresses. It seems that as long as the

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks

At this point, I support anything that looks like a compromise so we can get *any* change in policy at all... So this looks like a decent compromise to me. Yes, it'll have to be revisited in a couple of years' time; yes, the specifics probably aren't perfect. The community can change those.

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks

Hi Owen, On 25/09/15 21:56, Owen DeLong wrote: On Sep 25, 2015, at 04:23 , Elvis Daniel Velea wrote: Hi Owen, On 25/09/15 09:23, Owen DeLong wrote: It’s not ARIN’s mission to prevent profits nor did I say it was. My point is that Elvis support for removing policy is

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks

One more thing regarding the moving bits businesses.. On 25/09/15 21:56, Owen DeLong wrote: Do you offer any services involving moving bits between your clients and other organizations? Or are you strictly in the address marketing/management business? From everything you have said to me, I’ve