tting “virtual IX”
>> implementations, which are great for teaching, but don’t represent real
>> world peering interconnects in any meaningful way.
>
> Agreed. Any actual lab or teaching environment can be numbered out of 1918
> space.
Yep.
Owen
_
licy, 2024-5 references the new definition as part
> of the criteria rather than restate it.
>
> Hope that helps –
>
>
> Doug
>
>
>
>
> --
> Douglas J. Camin
> ARIN Advisory Council
> d...@dougcamin.com <mailto:d...@dougcamin.com>
>
ting the names and acronyms is
> to avoid confusion… “I’m trying to start an Internet Exchange… does this
> policy apply to me, or does it only apply to ‘Internet exchange points?’”
> List them all, but lead with the one that’s being defined for use in ARIN
> policies. The others
nguage as proposed protects the future viability of a very established
> and very successful model. Let's not create a back door for address space
> that could harm that model over a philosophical desire to be protocol agnostic
> or future-proof.
>
> Regards,
> Ryan Woolley
&
d if IX tech changes, policy could be changed. If someone tells ARIN
>> they’re deploying an ATM switch as an IX in 2024 it should set off alarm
>> bells IMHO.
>>>
>>> As long as the physical switch component is kept I don't think there would
>>> be heartache.
> On May 23, 2024, at 18:54, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 21:31 Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML <mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net>> wrote:
>> I support the spirit of the draft policy, but I’d like to see a change that
>> I don’t think w
g
it meets the other requirements).
Tyler
On Thu, 2024-05-23 at 21:54 -0400, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 21:31 Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML
> wrote:
> > I support the spirit of the draft policy, but I’d like to see a change that
> > I don’t think
> On May 22, 2024, at 21:24, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 5:07 PM Tyler O'Meara via ARIN-PPML
> mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net>> wrote:
>> Overall I support this change, but I have a few nitpicks:
>>
>> 1) We should only incl
I support the spirit of the draft policy, but I’d like to see a change that I
don’t think will be controversial…
1. ARIN should not be specifying network technologies. “A physically present
ethernet switch” is way too specific for NRPM IMHO. I would propose, instead,
that we specify “connected
I support this change, but have a few suggestions:
1) I'd use Critical Internet Infrastructure (CII) as the official term for this
section; Critical Infrastructure seems a bit too vague.
2) Instead of "ARIN will reserve", should we change it to "ARIN has reserved",
since
I support this change as written, assuming section is properly capitalized (e.g.
not capitalized).
Tyler O'Meara
AS53727
On Tue, 2024-05-21 at 12:27 -0400, ARIN wrote:
> On 16 May 2024, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted “ARIN-prop-334: 6.5.1a
> Definition Update” as a Draft
Exchange Point (IXP) is a shared, physical, switching fabric
used by three or more Autonomous Systems for the exchange of data destined for
and between their respective networks.
Tyler O'Meara
AS53727
On Tue, 2024-05-21 at 12:26 -0400, ARIN wrote:
> On 16 May 2024, the ARIN Advisory Council
With the definition proposed here:
"An Organizational Identifier (Org ID) is an identifier assigned to resource
holders in the ARIN registry."
does that mean that an organization that applies for and receives an Org ID
doesn't really have an Org ID until they receive
On 16 May 2024, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) advanced the following Draft
Policy to Recommended Draft Policy status:
* ARIN-2024-1: Definition of Organization ID/Org ID
The text of the Recommended Draft Policy is below, and may also be found at:
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy
On 16 May 2024, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) advanced the following Draft
Policy to Recommended Draft Policy status:
* ARIN-2022-12: Direct Assignment Language Update
The text of the Recommended Draft Policy is below, and may also be found at:
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts
On 16 May 2024, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted “ARIN-prop-334: 6.5.1a
Definition Update” as a Draft Policy.
Draft Policy ARIN-2024-6 is below and can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2024_6
You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC
On 16 May 2024, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted “ARIN-prop-333: Rewrite
of NRPM Section 4.4 Micro-Allocation” as a Draft Policy.
Draft Policy ARIN-2024-5 is below and can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2024_5
You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies
On 16 May 2024, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted “ARIN-prop-332:
Internet Exchange Point Definition” as a Draft Policy.
Draft Policy ARIN-2024-4 is below and can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2024_4
You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML
In accordance with the Policy Development Process (PDP), the Advisory Council
met on 16 May 2024.
The AC has advanced the following to Draft Policy status (will be posted
separately for discussion):
* ARIN-prop-332: Internet Exchange Point Definition
* ARIN-prop-333: Rewrite of NRPM Section
his thread, I expect the actual change to be a no-op.
All I'm doing is closing a loophole in the written text that currently allows an
operator of CII to get an allocation under 4.4 to then go off and use it for
some other purpose. In practice, I expect ARIN staff would prohibit that today,
but by
e IXP
>>>>> allocations to assign to content caches and on this point I think that
>>>>> IXP pool should not be for that. Even knowing the positive impact a
>>>>> hosted content directly connected to a IXP makes it is their business to
>>>&g
On 17 April 2024 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) reverted Recommended Draft
Policy ARIN-2023-7: Clarification of NRPM Sections 4.5 and 6.11 Multiple
Discrete Networks to Draft Policy status.
The AC issued the following statement: “The AC, recognizing the community’s
desire for more
The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 17 April 2024, and sent the following
Recommended Draft Policy to Last Call.
*Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2023-6: ARIN Waitlist Qualification
Feedback is encouraged during the Last Call period. All comments should be
provided to the Public Policy
The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 17 April 2024, and sent the following
Recommended Draft Policy to Last Call for a period of 30 days.
*Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2023-5: Clean-up of NRPM Sections 4.3.4, 4.4,
4.10 and 6.10.1
The AC issued the following statement: “ARIN Recommended
The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 17 April 2024, and sent the following
Recommended Draft Policy to Last Call.
*Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2023-1: Retire 4.2.1.4. Slow Start
Feedback is encouraged during the Last Call period. All comments should be
provided to the Public Policy Mailing
In accordance with the Policy Development Process (PDP), the Advisory Council
met on 17 April 2024.
The AC has sent the following Recommended Draft Policy to Last Call for a
period of 14 days.
*Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2023-1: Retire 4.2.1.4. Slow Start
Feedback is encouraged during
nd to be fair if you think of any CDN
>>> service they all have total means to do that. Therefore IXP allocations
>>> should be used for IXP own usage, so internal Infrastructure and to connect
>>> members and things should not be mixed up.
>>>
>>>
h RPKI enables
IXP operators to do.
I think there shouldn't be a hard rule about the space being publicly
routable or not, it is up to the individual IXP operators to decide what
technical approach is best for their stakeholder community.
Kind regards,
Job
___
nt already in existence for 4.10 allocations.
I would also recommend removing the entire paragraph "Exchange point allocations
MUST be allocated from specific blocks reserved only for this purpose. All other
micro-allocations WILL be allocated out of other blocks reserved for micro-
allocation
Therefore IXP allocations should be
> used for IXP own usage, so internal Infrastructure and to connect members and
> things should not be mixed up.
>
> Regards
> Fernando
>
>>
>> --Matt
>>
>>
>> ___
>
Further, since we seem to be doing an s/assignment/allocation/g we might want
to do that here as well?
Owen
> On Mar 26, 2024, at 13:33, William Herrin wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 1:14 PM ARIN wrote:
>> Policy Statement:
>>
>> Current policy: When poss
On 21 March 2024, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted “ARIN-prop-330: Edit
6.5.8.3 Section 2” as an Editorial Update.
Editorial Update ARIN-edit-2024-3 is below and can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/ARIN_edit_2024_3
The process for Editorial Updates is found
On 21 March 2024, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted “ARIN-prop-329: WHOIS
Data Requirements Policy for Non-Personal Information” as a Draft Policy.
Draft Policy ARIN-2024-2 is below and can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2024_2
You are encouraged to discuss
On 21 March 2024, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) advanced the following Draft
Policy to Recommended Draft Policy status:
* ARIN-2023-6: ARIN Waitlist Qualification
The text of the Recommended Draft Policy is below, and may also be found at:
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts
In accordance with the Policy Development Process (PDP), the Advisory Council
met on 21 March 2024.
The AC has advanced the following to Draft Policy status (will be posted
separately for discussion):
* ARIN-prop-329: WHOIS Data Requirements Policy for Non-Personal Information
The AC
The following Draft Policy has been revised:
* ARIN-2022-12: Direct Assignment Language Update
Revised text is below and can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2022_12/
You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will evaluate
the discussion
y are protocols
and methods which are being replaced by new modern protocols and
methods. The language should be updated to reflect those new terms
or use generic terms such as directory services or registration records.
Thanks,
Andrew
On 3/6/2024 12:06 PM, ARIN wrote:
Corrected copy
Corrected copy with Statement of Conformance Included.
* ARIN-2023-5: Clean-up of NRPM Sections 4.3.4, 4.4, 4.10 and 6.10.1
The text of the Recommended Draft Policy is below, and may also be found at:
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2023_5/
You are encouraged to discuss all
Corrected copy with Statement of Conformance Included.
* ARIN-2023-4: Modernization of Registration Requirements
The text of the Recommended Draft Policy is below, and may also be found at:
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2023_4/
You are encouraged to discuss all Recommended
Corrected copy with Statement of Conformance Included.
* ARIN-2023-1: Retire 4.2.1.4. Slow Start
The text of the Recommended Draft Policy is below, and may also be found at:
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2023_1/
You are encouraged to discuss all Recommended Draft Policies
The following Draft Policy has been revised:
* ARIN-2022-12: Direct Assignment Language Update
Revised text is below and can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2022_12/
You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will evaluate
the discussion
The following Draft Policy has been revised:
* ARIN-2023-6: ARIN Waitlist Qualification
Revised text is below and can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2023_6/
You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will evaluate
the discussion
ve mistake for us to attempt to determine which uses are more valuable than
others. ARIN is neutral to how receiving organizations use their IP addresses,
and should continue to be so.
This still begs the question of how we should distribute any IPv4 addresses that
we have in excess of the special use
d I have different perspectives and differing opinions on these
matters.
I cannot agree that it is fair to prevent existing users from having an equal
shot at available address space with new entrants and I think reservating IPv4
for “future use” to the detriment of “current need” is wholly unfair.
s wait time. Is this still to
>>> vague ?
>>>
>>> https://www.lacnic.net/6335/2/lacnic/ipv4-address-waitlist
>>
>> And? What does this have to do with whether it’s good policy in the ARIN
>> region or not?
>
> It has to do with your argument
ed. Who
>> is being vague now?
>
>
> This is LACNIC waiting list which has always assigned *only to new entrants*.
> It is currently easily on 5 years wait time. Is this still to vague ?
>
> https://www.lacnic.net/6335/2/lacnic/ipv4-address-waitlist
And? What does this ha
On 15 February 2024, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) advanced the following
Draft Policy to Recommended Draft Policy status:
* ARIN-2023-7: Clarification of NRPM Sections 4.5 and 6.11 Multiple Discrete
Networks
The text of the Recommended Draft Policy is below, and may also be found
In accordance with the Policy Development Process (PDP), the Advisory Council
met on 15 February 2024.
The AC has rejected the following Proposal due to scope:
*ARIN-prop-326: Replace Specified Transfers with Monthly Single-Price Auction
Per ARIN's PDP:
Policy Proposals
can legitimately spin up an
>> organization for a few hundred dollars and a few hours of work.
>
> That's a theory you have without knowing ARIN tools and possibilities.
In another sign of the apocalypse, I agree with Owen.
If a new company is set up and obtains address space via
he IPv6 fight elsewhere)
Oh, I do that too.
Owen
___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mail
heir failure onto the rest of us.
>
> That's a theory you have without knowing ARIN tools and possibilities.
No, it’s a statement of fact based on actual knowledge and experience.
> Again, it doesn't matter much the theoretical possibilities. There will
> always be unli
facilitate latecomers and laggards failure to deploy
> > IPv6 is simply not in the overall best interests of the internet.
>
> Well, that's another discussion. Newcomers don't have any and cannot do
> anything without a minimal IPv4 even if they prefectly deploy IPv6.
> Tryi
a supposition unsupported by
real data. ARIN has means to develop ways to check these newer
organizations and separate the possible fraudsters from the legit
ones. Just before there it serves to inhibit a lot of organization
to even request IPs under the waitlist making it much cleaner
te:
>>
>> How about this:
>>
>> Each waitlist recipient specifies a desired block size and a minimum
>> acceptable block size. Wait list recipients can change their minimum
>> acceptable block size at any time so long as it is no shorter than their
>>
How about this:
Each waitlist recipient specifies a desired block size and a minimum acceptable
block size. Wait list recipients can change their minimum acceptable block size
at any time so long as it is no shorter than their originally approved block
size.
When ARIN receives a block
alifier helps to get across the intent that an ISP/LIR may
obtain their first (IPv4) /24 without further justification being required.
Therefore, I would propose simply re-adding automatically in the first
statement, so that section 4.2.2 now reads:
“All ISP organizations without any IPv4 addresses fro
> On Feb 20, 2024, at 13:22, William Herrin wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 10:53 AM ARIN wrote:
>> FROM:
>>
>> “Allocation - IP addresses delegated to an organization directly by ARIN for
>> the purpose of subsequent distribution by the recipient
The following Draft Policy has been revised:
* ARIN-2023-8: Reduce 4.1.8 Maximum Allocation
Revised text is below and can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2023_8
You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will evaluate
;>> On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 5:37 AM John Curran wrote:
>>> An Organization Identifier (Org ID) is an identifier assigned to entities
>>> that wish to participate in the Internet Numbers Registry System via ARIN
>>> registry services.
>>
>> I l
in the Internet Numbers Registry System via ARIN
> > registry services.
>
> I like this better, but saying, "an identifier is an identifier," is
> still an irritatingly circular definition.
>
> Try: " An Organization Identifier (Org ID) is a unique text la
, it is invalid, so I cannot support as written.
Owen
> On Feb 7, 2024, at 13:05, ARIN wrote:
>
> The following Draft Policy has been revised:
>
> * ARIN-2024-1: Definition of Organization ID/Org ID
>
> Revised text is below and can be found at:
>
> https://www.arin.ne
The following Draft Policy has been revised:
* ARIN-2024-1: Definition of Organization ID/Org ID
Revised text is below and can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2024_1/
You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will evaluate
The definition below does more than define the term Organization ID/Org ID.
It also defines who is entitled to receive an Org ID and, effectively, who
is entitled to receive resources from ARIN.
Maybe defining who is entitled to receive an Org ID is unnecessary.
However, if necessary, we must
Unfortunately, legal person is also problematic as it would eliminate
unincorporated business entities.
Suggest adding legal person as an additional term to the proposed language
rather than replacing it.
Owen
> On Feb 4, 2024, at 11:22, Tyler O'Meara via ARIN-PPML
> wrote:
>
question)?
Given we also have at least 1 known case of a natural person(s)
registering as an Org ID, ARIN would also either need to revoke any
existing resources granted to natural persons, force them to transfer
to a juridical person, or deal with the privacy/legal implications
anyways.
Finally
e replaced with "legal person".
Tyler
On Thu, 2024-02-01 at 08:49 -0800, Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML wrote:
> I have resources registered under Owen DeLong and Family. This is not
> and has never been a business. While I do provide some of those
> resources to DeLong Consult
The following Draft Policy has been revised:
* ARIN-2022-12: Direct Assignment Language Update
Revised text is below and can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2022_12/
You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will evaluate
I have resources registered under Owen DeLong and Family. This is not and has never been a business. While I do provide some of those resources to DeLong Consulting (which is a business), my resources are not registered to a business.I see no basis in ARIN policy or the RSA to invalidate or reject
Hello all,
Correction and my apologies for any confusion. There was a copy/paste error in
the body of the previous email. On 26 January 2024, the ARIN Advisory Council
(AC) accepted “ARIN-prop-328: Definition of Organization ID/Org ID” as a Draft
Policy, not ARIN-prop-322. For clarity, I
On 26 January 2024, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted “ARIN-prop-322:
Modernization of Registration Requirements” as a Draft Policy.
Draft Policy ARIN-2024-1 is below and can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2024_1
You are encouraged to discuss all
In accordance with the Policy Development Process (PDP), the Advisory Council
met on 26 January 2024.
The AC has advanced the following to Draft Policy status (will be posted
separately for discussion):
* ARIN-prop-328: Definition of Organization ID/Org ID
The AC advances Proposals
ethods. The language should be updated
> to reflect those new terms or use generic terms such as directory services or
> registration records.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Andrew
>
> On 1/17/24 1:16 PM, ARIN wrote:
>
>
>
> Problem Statement:
>
> Registration is c
Numbers (ARIN)
Problem Statement:
Registration is central to the value provided by ARIN to the
community. Registry quality depends greatly upon the timely
registration of reassignments from ISPs to end users. The motivation
for registration has waned since the depletion of the free pool
On 21 December 2023, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) advanced the following
Draft Policy to Recommended Draft Policy status:
* ARIN-2023-4: Modernization of Registration Requirements
The text of the Recommended Draft Policy is below, and may also be found at:
https://www.arin.net
In accordance with the Policy Development Process (PDP), the Advisory Council
met on 21 December 2023.
The AC has advanced the following to Recommended Draft Policy status (will be
posted separately for discussion):
* ARIN-2023-4: Modernization of Registration Requirements
The AC
> On Dec 20, 2023, at 12:20, Dale W. Carder wrote:
>
> Thus spake Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML (arin-ppml@arin.net) on Mon, Dec 18,
> 2023 at 12:23:31PM -0800:
>> I don’t favor striking the first paragraph. While the topics are out of
>> scope for policy, th
I don’t know if anyone has asked.
I do know that at the ARIN meeting in San Diego they were relatively vocally
opposed.
I know they have also opposed this on virtually every policy mailing list in
every RIR where this has been proposed.
Modulo a few IPv4 fan boys who are bad at math, IMHO
(ARIN)
-
Problem Statement:
Section 4.5 and 6.11 of the NRPM does not adhere to the style guide used by the
remainder of the document. The numbered lists in these two sections also
detracts from the readability and usability of the NRPM.
Policy Statement:
Current:
4.5 Multiple
y resulting in loss
>> of the policy.
>>
>> Owen
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 18, 2023, at 11:25, Matthew Wilder via ARIN-PPML >> <mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello community members,
>>>
>>> Thank
cy exists, potentially resulting in
> loss of the policy.
>
> Owen
>
>
> On Dec 18, 2023, at 11:25, Matthew Wilder via ARIN-PPML <
> arin-ppml@arin.net> wrote:
>
> Hello community members,
>
> Thank you to everyone who has provided inputs for the working group's
>
On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 2:34 PM Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML <
arin-ppml@arin.net> wrote:
>
>
> > On Dec 18, 2023, at 11:28, Fernando Frediani
> wrote:
> >
> > I think it is forcing too much for so little. Just give the IPv4 IXPs
> need to operate and make p
it to the community, I favor continuing to allocate /24s to
IXPs until they run out and then encouraging future IXPs to either engage the
transfer market or deliver IPv4 NLRI over IPv6.
Owen
>
> Fernando
>
> On 25/11/2023 22:33, owen--- via ARIN-PPML wrote:
>> The problem I
of the policy.
Owen
> On Dec 18, 2023, at 11:25, Matthew Wilder via ARIN-PPML
> wrote:
>
> Hello community members,
>
> Thank you to everyone who has provided inputs for the working group's
> consideration with regard to Section 6 policies. There have been great
Fernando,
Indeed I think there is a great deal of public support for IXPs to be able
to continue to be an important part of the landscape. We as shepherds of
ARIN-2023-2 are considering all of the feedback we are seeing on PPML.
I just wish to clarify, by IXP do you mean a public Internet
hew Wilder
___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i..
n difference between "Firms that provide IP
> address management services, including monitoring of one’s
> routing/IRR/RPKI/geolocation/rDNS status and leasing of IP address space”
> when compared to “Firms that provide address block management only” –– this
> is a very fine distinction indeed
> On Dec 14, 2023, at 14:45, John Curran wrote:
>
>
>> On Dec 14, 2023, at 4:34 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>> Does this mean that ARIN will issue IPv6 to LIR requests with a stated
>> intent to go into the IP resource management business separate from
&
t; Owen -
>
> Whether it occurred to you or not is immaterial. The fact that there is an
> actual difference in scope between the scope of the two terms is rather
> important.
>
> ARIN does not maintain your presumed scope of the Section 6 LIR equivalence
> language when consideri
fines LIR, but it does in 6.5.1.a as
>> shown above.
>
> Indeed - alas NRPM has to apply to more than IPv6, so at a minimum that
> definition should move to the general definitions, if the community intends
> such to be more widely applicable.
Agreed that 6.5.1.a is poorly pl
> On Dec 13, 2023, at 12:25, John Curran wrote:
>
>
>
>>>> On Dec 13, 2023, at 1:40 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Dec 13, 2023, at 09:09, John Curran wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> I note that that you make a strong pr
> On Dec 13, 2023, at 09:09, John Curran wrote:
>
>
>> On Dec 12, 2023, at 2:18 PM, owen--- via ARIN-PPML
>> wrote:
>>
>> ISP is a very ambiguous term which carries a lot of different connotations
>> to different people, most of which don’t describe
ISP is a very ambiguous term which carries a lot of different connotations to
different people, most of which don’t describe the full range of ARIN member
LIRs.
LIRs include cloud providers, CDNs, certain government entities, colocation
facilities, “eyeball” providers, backbone providers
> On Dec 8, 2023, at 09:43, WOOD Alison * DAS
> wrote:
>
> Happy Friday ARIN Community!
>
> The Policy Experience Report from ARIN 52 brought about great discussion on
> 4.10 space and I would appreciate your feedback.
>
> A growing number of organizations a
this is another email in the series of Section 6
> potential changes we would like to raise awareness of and gather feedback
> about from the ARIN community.
>
> Section 6.5.1.a “Terminology” explains that ISP and LIR terms are used
> interchangeably throughout the ent
nks –
>
>
> Doug
>
>
>
> --
> Douglas J. Camin
> ARIN Advisory Council
> d...@dougcamin.com <mailto:d...@dougcamin.com>
>
> From: ARIN-PPML on behalf of Owen DeLong via
> ARIN-PPML
> Date: Tuesday, November 28, 2023 at 1:29 PM
>
> On Nov 28, 2023, at 10:23, Dale W. Carder wrote:
>
> Thus spake owen--- via ARIN-PPML (arin-ppml@arin.net
> <mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net>) on Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 05:54:49PM -0800:
>>
>>> On Nov 20, 2023, at 12:59, Christian Tacit wrote:
>>>
>&g
Personally, of the two, I’d prefer to retire 6.1 rather than 6.3.
However, I think both still have useful content and context.
Owen
> On Nov 27, 2023, at 10:47, Matthew Wilder via ARIN-PPML
> wrote:
>
> Hi PPML subscribers,
>
> As a continuation of the series of discuss
similar
principles laid out in Section 1 and therefore we as a group wonder if the
goals in Section 6.3 still provide value, or if it might be time to retire
them.
Thank you in advance for your input.
Regards,
Matthew
___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving
tentional but I'll assume it was. Doesn't appear clearly
> marked for deletion unless I missed it. The original or the June edit was
> also not a mirror of the RIPE proposal. ARIN can decide if anything needs to
> be fixed documentation wise or if we could use the help of a red line for the
Whatever we do with IPv4 will be painful to some group.
Correct answer: IPv6.
In the mean time, I guess do whatever you want with the deck chairs, but try to
avoid drowning the band.
Owen
> On Nov 21, 2023, at 09:35, ARIN wrote:
>
> On 16 November 2023, the ARIN Advisory Co
1 - 100 of 1351 matches
Mail list logo
