LAN.
Hi Chris. In which of my previous messages Am I saying otherwise ?
Regards
There is zero in the current iteration of the policy to prohibit this.
-Chris
On Apr 22, 2024, at 6:49 PM, Fernando Frediani
wrote:
Of course Owen, on every email I read from you I get the impression
flexible scenario. I. am arguing to preserve the status quo.
Owen
On Apr 21, 2024, at 22:45, Fernando Frediani
wrote:
It seems you kind of disregards the basics of IP assignment and mix
up things and what they were made for and thought for. It is not
because something looks convenient, that is
Woodcock wrote:
On Apr 22, 2024, at 08:04, Fernando Frediani wrote:
…A convenience to divert the pool to supply addresses and support the emergence
of IXPs with allowing them to act as RIRs and supply addresses to third parties.
I agree that that is a hypothetical danger. There are lots
you’re the one proposing to impose a cost on everyone else, the
burden falls on you to prove that is solves an actual problem, not on
Owen to prove that it does not.
-Bill
On Apr 22, 2024, at 7:44 AM, Fernando Frediani
wrote:
It seems you kind of disregards the basics of IP
. To the
best of my knowledge, there is no problem of abuse to date. As such, I
think your concern here has about as much credibility as those crying
about election fraud in the US.
Owen
On Apr 18, 2024, at 22:31, Fernando Frediani
wrote:
By doing this it creates a short path to some specific type
On Fri, 19 Apr 2024, 11:54 Job Snijders via ARIN-PPML,
wrote:
>
> 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.
>
Sure, but it is
, 2024, at 20:35, Fernando Frediani
wrote:
On 18/04/2024 21:34, Matt Peterson wrote:
If the policy needs revision /(John's comments did not provide
enough of a background story - it's unclear if this a yet another
IPv4 land grab approach, and/or IXP's evolving into hosting content
caches
On 18/04/2024 21:34, Matt Peterson wrote:
If the policy needs revision /(John's comments did not provide enough
of a background story - it's unclear if this a yet another IPv4 land
grab approach, and/or IXP's evolving into hosting content caches,
and/or the historical industry acceptable
On 18/04/2024 19:44, Ryan Woolley wrote:
At ARIN 53, John Sweeting asked for clarification from the community
on whether an internet exchange needs IP space beyond that used for
the switching fabric, and whether IP allocations made to an IXP
operator may need to be routable. Additionally, John
opinion
here is worth the cost of the postage for this email.
Owen
On Dec 19, 2023, at 10:45, Fernando Frediani wrote:
Hello there Matthew
That's actually a very good point and question. In general I would say Exchange
point operators, even commercial ones who still play an important role
Hi
On 18/12/2023 17:34, Owen DeLong wrote:
ike the idea of shrinking IPv4 delegations form RIRs below /24, but if
that is the feasible option than better than nothing.
My point is don’t shrink it, let it roll at /24 until it runs out. Once it
does, IXPs are the least disadvantaged by this
business together) and without necessarily any degree of transparency?
Thanks,
Matthew Wilder
On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 11:29 AM Fernando Frediani
wrote:
I think it is forcing too much for so little. Just give the IPv4 IXPs
need to operate and make people`s life easier. IXPs are a very
I think it is forcing too much for so little. Just give the IPv4 IXPs
need to operate and make people`s life easier. IXPs are a very important
part of Internet ecosystem that changes a lot of things for better in
terms of redundancy, robustness and performance. Yes IPv4 NLRI over IPv6
may work
On 27/10/2023 17:24, John Curran wrote:
As an relevant side-note, I will observe that there was discussion during the
PDP update
of requiring that _all_ policy proposals initially start solely as a problem
statement, and
only after that problem statement had been discussed by the community
This time strangely I will have to agree with Owen.
This is the forum to discuss this topic that concerns everyone here. It is
very pertinent. Thanks we are having this discussion than not having.
And as far as I saw nothing got out of the controll and everyone is being
able to put up their view
I think I undertand what Bill is trying to put and for me it is much
simpler.
How one can put his/her name available for candidacy if doesn't participate
on discussions and mainly doesn't properly undertand the mechanics of how
this all works ?
I don't think it needs to be a written requirement
On 26/10/2023 19:54, Martin Hannigan wrote:
Almost every member of the AC and Board works for a company that is
either transferring (buy or sell) IPv4 addresses, on the waitlist,
consulting on obtaining number resources or just plain "needers". Most
have some or all their responsibilities
Well said.
I find very weird that people try to put IP brokerage as a normal thing
compared to other usual services that really develop the internet with
evolution and entrepreneurship.
When you buy a router, a server, any network equipment it is yours. You
may do whatever you want with
ou to make an effort to separate a mere
annoyance and endeavor to put arguments to defend your points and the
discussion can continue fine.
Regards
Fernando
On 26/10/2023 15:06, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 26, 2023, at 09:49, Fernando Frediani
wrote:
The very existence of PPML is a block a
The very existence of PPML is a block and problem for IP brokers to
freely do business due to the restrictions policies developed here
impact their ability to do whatever their wish to fit to their customer
needs.
Last time I saw a IP broker representative speaking to an audience he
said with
Hi Bill
Also check other details that may be concerning for example if any of
them have affiliations or connections to any IP brokers or what kind of
proposals that may put in jeopardy ARIN registered resources.
Fernando
On 26/10/2023 04:42, William Herrin wrote:
Howdy,
As I think about
C to
Get a ROA from ISP B.
ROAs have to be representative of the ORIGINATOR of the route in BGP
or they are useless.
Owen
On Jun 23, 2023, at 11:24, Fernando Frediani
wrote:
I don't think this should be allowed to happen. ROAs are to be
created by organizations who receive the alloca
I don't think this should be allowed to happen. ROAs are to be created
by organizations who receive the allocation from the RIR as ultimatelly
they remain responsible for that IP space. If they have allocated a
block to a customer they should be the ones responsible for creating any
ROAs they
Hello Michael
If I am not forgotten you are someone who strongly opposed IPv6 sometime
ago, called it a undue burden and seems to be fighting against it with
all forces and stating clearly and you don't need it. Not surprised now
by your email about RPKI as well.
Fernando
On 05/06/2023
If there are not enough incentives already let's create more then. We, as a
community in a bottom up process as responsible for creating them based on
what is right and fair to most people.
Use the excuse that the broker market is happing is not enough to try
pretend things like leasing is a
to their commercial needs. Is Congress willing to change
law to make crimes in the top of list not to be a crime anymore because
that is happening more often?
You are only authorized to trade with what you bought and own.
Fernando
Thanks
On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 18:23 Fernando Frediani
wrote:
Hi
a important role
in reducing scenarios where resources can be misused.
On 08/05/2023 19:45, William Herrin wrote:
On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 3:26 PM Fernando Frediani wrote:
Another thing which many here are targeting about IP leasing
in the sense of renting, speculation made by those who don't
build
Hello Willian
It is that very difficult to differentiate a scenario where a final
customer receives a block allocation in order to have their Internet
service working with that connectivity provider. That has never been a
problem.
Another thing which many here are targeting about IP leasing
On 08/05/2023 19:05, Noah wrote:
Good.. and the RIR system and only the RIR must handle the
management and distribution based on need of IP resources and not a
3rd party entity that the community does not even recognize.
Totally ! That´s a fundamental point !
IP Leasing undermines the
You can only lease what you own. What people are trying to do here is
pretend they own the resources and earn money with an asset they don't
own despite everything that what IP addresses have always meant for.
IP leasing is an attestation that the resource holder doesn't justify
for those
How on earth people are still considering such an absurd ? From time to
time it seems that some people take turns in trying make IP leasing
looks a normal thing, an acceptable using the same excuse that "the
market already accepted" and throwing in the bin that IP addresses are
for those who
Hello
My answer is absolutely not to stay in the waiting list. Waiting list
should not be a hope for majority that are there, only for those who
have very little and may be able to wait as long as necessary to get a
few more to keep going with their business. Any other needs that cannot
wait
Interesting this topic. Generally speaking I always found a bit strange
(not only in ARIN) to have this distinction between ISP and End-user. In
practice things should not differ much. Only thing that would possible
remain slightly different are the details of justifications that must be
That is precisely one of the main points: to disincentivize
organizations from joining the waitlist in order to sell for a profit later.
If an organization acquires space from the waitlist no longer needs it
it should not be able to sell the space given that space was already
'acquired' in a
resources that are
reclaimed or otherwise become available to ARIN.
Thanks.
On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 5:09 PM Fernando Frediani
wrote:
Then need to detail and analyze what sound unreasonable in
changing 5 years period to indefinite.
Reducing the request size to anything smaller than
Then need to detail and analyze what sound unreasonable in changing 5
years period to indefinite.
Reducing the request size to anything smaller than an /22 is giving a
such small and useless space that will probably make no difference to
whoever receives it. A /22 is already a very small
Initially the idea sounds good in order to prevent any organization to
sit in the waiting list with the intention to simply earn money with the
transfer of the well waited space that surely should not be for that
intention.
Fernando
On 14/11/2022 18:42, WOOD Alison * DAS wrote:
Hello!
The
In the case where ARIN issued then let's keep calling it by its name, so
nobody can think otherwise and is always aware that something that was
once issued can be revoked if rules surrounding that are circumvented,
because it is not uncommon many thing that once issued that becomes a
Hello Martin
Why does it matter for the discussion of this proposal here in ARIN to
follow its normal way ?
It has been clarified already the intention is not to present it as a
Global Policy and other proposals have been presented in other RIRs
already but not all, so if it doesn't happen in
l/chat/0/0?users=athomp...@merlin.mb.ca>
*From:*ARIN-PPML *On Behalf Of *Fernando
Frediani
*Sent:* September 11, 2022 10:30 PM
*To:* arin-ppml@arin.net
*Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2022-9: Leasing Not Intended
Hello Bruce
Thanks for sharing these concerns. Seem reasonable
to someone that has the
ability to get these addresses by themselves via a transfer for example.
Fernando
Regards,
Mike
*From:* ARIN-PPML *On Behalf Of *Fernando
Frediani
*Sent:* Saturday, September 10, 2022 1:25 PM
*To:* arin-ppml
*Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2022-9: Leasing
leasing of address blocks
for dubious services.
It may make sense to make a policy that disallows leasing for network
usage justification.
Bruce C
On Sep 10, 2022, at 10:13 AM, Fernando Frediani
wrote:
Hello Bruce
There is not problem at all in these scenarios as resources can
leasing as that impacts enforcement and other
issues.
This proposal remains deeply flawed.
So I remain deeply opposed.
Regards,
Mike
On Fri, 09 Sep 2022 12:44:10 -0400 *Fernando Frediani
* wrote ---
Hello
There is no such error in the proposal.
This has been checked
in corporate structure occur
when shifting day to day operations to subsidiaries or sister
corporations, leaving the block assignment with the original holder.
Bruce C
On Sep 9, 2022, at 9:44 AM, Fernando Frediani
wrote:
Hello
There is no such error in the proposal.
This has been
Hello
There is no such error in the proposal.
This has been checked as being the interpretation staff gives to the
current policy in most RIRs. APNIC is just an example that have
confirmed it publicly a couples of days ago.
You may not find all the very specific words you may wish for in the
and easily gamed, or
onerous, bureaucratic, and will interfere with the legitimate
operation of networks efficiently utilizing their IPv4 space.
-Scott
On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 9:32 AM Fernando Frediani
wrote:
Hello Scott
Could you explain better the arguments you a
Hello Scott
Could you explain better the arguments you are against in this proposal
or that don't sound valid?
All this proposal does is to make clear make something clear in the
policy text.
If you cannot go to ARIN and justify that you intend to use requested IP
addresses for simple
to organizations because of a 3rd party problem that it is not their
duty to resolve. Therefore leave it without it and perhaps at maximum
have a minimum time hold time.
Fernando Frediani
PS: It seems to be a hell the existence of these type of blacklists that
don't look to have any criteria
On 08/08/2022 22:24, Jay Hennigan wrote:
So no, you are NOT correct. It IS ARIN's business what you are doing
with your large legacy block.
If you haven't signed an LRSA, how is it any of ARIN's business what
you do with your legacy block?
It has been already explained here.
If community
On 08/08/2022 17:48, John Santos wrote:
I found the policy and original problem statement confusing because
the verb "lease" is ambiguous. It can refer to leasing something FROM
someone else or to leasing something TO someone else.
I read the problem statement as describing a situation where
/08/2022 08:50, John Curran escreveu:
On 7 Aug 2022, at 11:11 PM, Fernando Frediani
wrote:
It is positive that many of these legacy holder returned some of
their unneeded IPv4 resources in the past. However I personally
believe it is something negative that there is still a fair amount
It is positive that many of these legacy holder returned some of their
unneeded IPv4 resources in the past. However I personally believe it is
something negative that there is still a fair amount of these addresses
unused and not even announced to the DFZ as if they were waiting for
some big
On Fri, 5 Aug 2022, 13:20 John Curran, wrote:
>
>
> Alas, there’s very little evidence that legacy resource holders (being
> parties that lack any
> written agreement with ARIN) have any magical ability or right that would
> preclude ARIN
> operating its registry exactly as directed by
ANA agrees on that or if a given legacy resource holder wishes to
return it directly to IANA would it be forbidden and directed by IANA to
do to ARIN ?
Fernando
Em 25/07/2022 12:37, John Curran escreveu:
On 25 Jul 2022, at 11:02 AM, Fernando Frediani
wrote:
Em 25/07/2022 11:34, John Curran escreveu:
I
Em 25/07/2022 11:34, John Curran escreveu:
I have seen administratively and voluntarily dissolved corporations come
back to life, so ARIN must consider this.
Exactly… It turns out that dissolved isn’t necessarily a permanent state, and
in addition
“dissolved” doesn’t mean that the rights
mbers
On 24 Jul 2022, at 3:26 PM, Fernando Frediani
wrote:
Hello
This doesn't look nice, either the way it is written or the way it is
understood by ARIN.
Policy-related ideas and issues can mean a lot of things, including
facts that happen in other RIRs or general Internet Governance area
tha
, Fernando Frediani
wrote:
Hi John
Thanks for the response back to community.
But let take easier this thing about discussions on ARIN PPML mailing
list. I know some people may not like of find it strange discussions
that are not necessarily and exactly around a given proposal
Hi John
Thanks for the response back to community.
But let take easier this thing about discussions on ARIN PPML mailing
list. I know some people may not like of find it strange discussions
that are not necessarily and exactly around a given proposal but it is
not necessary to be like that.
On 15/07/2022 11:04, John Curran wrote:
Hopefully this works out well and any type of information brought to
any RIR in such manner gets investigated and in the worst case
scenario resources get revoked as they should.
No – parties that wish to bring information necessitating a review of
Although I rarely agree with Owen views I have to say I do in this case.
The situation seems simpler than it look like. It is healthy that
investigations in such cases as conducted independent of too much
formalities.
I have already done similar thing in another situation in another RIR
and
Folks, I think everybody agrees that anything here that becomes personal
should not be carried out, but it is important also to understand that
discussions related to Number Resource Policy may or may not necessarily
be of linked to an specific proposal, and in the cases it is not it is
still
erizon.com
>
>
>
> [image: Facebook] <http://www.facebook.com/verizon> [image: Twitter]
> <http://twitter.com/verizon> [image: LinkedIn]
> <http://www.linkedin.com/company/verizon>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 2:27 PM Fernando Frediani
> wro
Hello Stephen
Although I am not much involved in this discussion, although I commented
I have to say that I often see this type of questioning in the list and
I personally don't see the list exclusively to discuss policies, but
anything that may have to do with them and with this Policy
In my humble personal opinion this is the result and natural side-effect
of stimulating things like IP Leasing from those who have a lot of spare
IP Address to those who have been seeking it specially in the times of
IPv4 exhaustion.
Some people, even those who are not directly involved in
Hi
Thanks for the history and better clarification. However it is not still
clear to me if ARIN can, at some point and under which conditions
recover these legacy blocks which look abandoned and have zero signal of
being used or have some organization looking after it, and send to be
Is it necessary for a third party to have to prove that categorically ?
My understanding is that it should be enough to send fair amount of
evidences to the RIR and it has the duty to get in touch with that
organization to gather information and if necessary ask them to justify
if the
to my satisfaction, but
once we ensure it does so, I would likely support it.
-Scott
On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 1:33 PM Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML
mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net>> wrote:
On Mar 16, 2022, at 15:22 , Fernando Frediani
mailto:fhfredi...@gmail.com>
ompliant".
Oh and funny joke that a broker is like a LIR.
On 17/03/2022 17:32, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 16, 2022, at 15:22 , Fernando Frediani
wrote:
Hi David
If I understand correctly you seem to have a view that there should
be a ARIN policy to permit IPv4 leasing just because it
would likely support it.
-Scott
On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 1:33 PM Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML
wrote:
On Mar 16, 2022, at 15:22 , Fernando Frediani
wrote:
Hi David
If I understand correctly you
2022 at 1:33 PM Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML
wrote:
On Mar 16, 2022, at 15:22 , Fernando Frediani
wrote:
Hi David
If I understand correctly you seem to have a view that there
should be a ARIN policy to permit IPv4 leasing just because
it is a
Hi David
If I understand correctly you seem to have a view that there should be a
ARIN policy to permit IPv4 leasing just because it is a reality and we
kind of have to accept it in our days. No we don't, and that's for many
different reasons.
I am used to see people saying the brokers are
e legitimate
option?
-Scott
On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 10:02 AM Fernando Frediani
wrote:
On 11/03/2022 14:56, Tom Fantacone wrote:
Bill,
We can quibble about semantics, but let's go with your verbiage:
If I run a network and qualify for an /18 right now, can I go to
ARIN and
On 11/03/2022 14:56, Tom Fantacone wrote:
Bill,
We can quibble about semantics, but let's go with your verbiage:
If I run a network and qualify for an /18 right now, can I go to ARIN
and lease one? I must either /pay someone to release their addresses
to ARIN to lease to me/ or lease one
Wrong.
You don't lease addresses from ARIN.
You receive them for used based on the justified needs and you pay an
administrative fee to support the services to keep all the
infrastructure necessary for the ecosystem that keeps track of those
resources remain operational. This has nothing to
The justification that one cannot pay for something (make a proper
Transfer as expected under the current policy) doesn't seem to be a
valid justification to remove a essential requirement for justifying
need to usage of those resources that don't belong to them.
The principle of usage
I am opposed to this proposal.
In fact it sound like a debauchery to try to permit leased addresses to
be a valid reasons for justifying any type of allocation.
It is not in ARIN interest to facilitate something that not only is
essentially against the fundamental of IP usage and
It seems that is suggested the interest of the sellers may be above the
interests of the ARIN community which I obviously disagree. Need to find
out what fits for the current scenario we face but community interests
should always prevail.
And again RIPE examples are almost always not very
I tend to think that transfers originally exists due to IPv4 exhaustion
and that is justified. IPv6 and 32-bit ASN don't have the same
justification, only 16-bit ASN.
I would also like to understand it better.
Regards
Fernando
On 21/01/2022 14:18, Scott Leibrand wrote:
Are Inter-regional
Hi
I think there are a few important points to highlight.
First I personally don't see a problem in the existence of a NomCom. If
that exists is because the membership wanted that at some point to have
it in the bylaws so that just reflects their wish and understanding a
NomCom is something
of the community that is able to participate properly.
Thanks,
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers
On Sep 22, 2021, at 12:12 PM, Fernando Frediani
wrote:
I believe maybe Michael didn't understand well the matter fully or
got only part of it.
Probably
Hi Bill
You are right that just because we can't prevent something doesn't mean
we have to legitimize it or make it easy.
I don't really have much concern when people say the RIR will find it
difficult to enforce it. It is important to separate things: if
something is categorically wrong
I believe maybe Michael didn't understand well the matter fully or got
only part of it.
Probably what caused more confusion was how Owen put the part "No
signatory to any ARIN RSA is permitted by policy to engage in a
recurring charge for addresses or a differentiated service charge based
on
On 22/09/2021 03:49, Noah wrote:
So they choose to lease, and address holders are happy to monetize
their holdings while they appreciate in value.
By address holders you mean LIR. So what you are saying is that some
LIR out there who requested for IPv4 based on need from ARIN, are
Mike, please refrain from saying that everything people say in this list
against your ideas or interests is "ad hominem".
Chris points are perfectly valid and reasonable, but instead each and
every time you face an message that you dislike in a discussion your may
have interest you find a way
Well, it seems that leasing practices are not that popular among
community and tentatives to change the rules to make it easier or more
soft to those who focus on these practices will not be something that
may happen anytime soon.
So despite what some people say that "That´s a normal practice
Owen, you seem lately to be endeavoring tireless to make IP leasing
something normal and acceptable to most scenarios and make some weird
reading of the rules (not just in this RIR) to justify this view (your
own view that fortunately doesn't seem to match most of others) that IP
leasing and
Em 21/09/2021 14:22, Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML escreveu:
This policy doesn’t affect that… Leasing of address space you already
have is permitted under current policy and cannot be grounds for
revocation of address space.
The change in this policy proposal is not to permit or deny leasing,
Just want to say that I also oppose this proposal for similar reasons as
stated by Bill Herrin and Chris Woodfiled.
Get them directly from ARIN (either via Waiting List or a regular
Transfer - which remains directly from ARIN) and not via a LIR and don't
try to make LIRs play RIRs roles.
Also
What does being non-profit have to do with not paying the executives that
run the day by day of the organization ?
Fernando
On Sun, 19 Sep 2021, 01:33 Steve Noble, wrote:
> Since they are a non-profit, they could also cut executive salaries. As of
> 2019, John was being paid over $546,000 to
beneficial to the Internet instead
of just bet on the fast deployment of IPv6.
Regards
Fernando
Em 13/09/2021 15:32, William Herrin escreveu:
On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 10:54 AM Fernando Frediani wrote:
I don't know who was the "genius" back in the past on network vendors
wh
I don't know who was the "genius" back in the past on network vendors
who embedded to not forward traffic for that amount of /8's market as
Future Use. I think that was one of the most disastrous decisions ever
made in this area of IP space.
Using 240/4 on network equipment now a days is
+1
Pretty good and clear explanation.
I am glad that more most people seem to reject the idea that IP leasing
may be a good or even justified thing, including for those who end up
paying for it.
On 08/09/2021 22:33, John Curran wrote:
On 8 Sep 2021, at 5:02 PM, Owen DeLong
On 08/09/2021 17:56, Owen DeLong wrote:
ICP-2 has no relevance once an RIR is accredited. It is a document defining the
process for accrediting a new RIR and it only governs ICANN’s process for doing
so.
If ICANN is replaced and the IANA role is granted to some other institution,
ICP-2
“Johns" have given a great many
years of good and faithful service to a public that owes them both
gratitude and respect.
Owen
/elvis
-Chris
On Sep 7, 2021, at 10:49 AM, Fernando Frediani
mailto:fhfredi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Elvis
I have the same view as you do.
Despite
Hi Elvis
I have the same view as you do.
Despite this undertanding (and maybe the Board too - and correct me if I
don't reproduce it accuratelly) I refuse the view that "PDP is a concession
of the Board to the Community" and - this is what makes it even more
controvertial - that 'this does not
On Tue, 7 Sep 2021, 13:27 John Curran, wrote:
>
>
> If for some reason you’d like the concept of “technical need" for number
> resources to somehow be redefined to encompass your financial desire to
> satisfy the number resource needs of other organizations, then submit a
> proposal to change
Owen, words are just words.
If one justify like that they have to prove it properly and if they are
unable they should be refused until they are able to. It is simple as that.
Fernando
On Tue, 7 Sep 2021, 12:54 Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML,
wrote:
> >
> > As it turns out, we already handle
As you seem to know well, can you detail the type of these 'network
services' provided and also if the justifications given to AfriNic by
the actual resource holder for the IP addresses involved in these
services when they were assigned are still the same ?
Fernando
On 06/09/2021 07:02,
Owen, you repeat this fixed idea over and over and over that LIR 'lease'
addresses exactlly the same way those who don't have any commitment to
building any internet but only speculate with IP addresses do, in a try to
justify and make it normal the last one.
It ia not too hard to see the
Being part of Policy Development Processes I see people sometimes
unwilling to have certain rules and restrictions that are correct and
fair with the justification that "people will break it" or they will do
under the table, so then it seems there is a suggestion of "let's have
next to no
1 - 100 of 239 matches
Mail list logo
