Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2018-1: Allow Inter-regional ASN Transfers

the onslaught? As a reminder, stewards should govern with the lightest touch, responding to the needs of the community. The community is asking for this, has been for years, why not do it? Regards, Mike From: Owen DeLong Sent: Monday, August 13, 2018 7:05 PM To: Mike Burns

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2018-1: Allow Inter-regional ASN Transfers

I support the policy and note that: The costs to implement are practically zero. Some community members have requested this ability, who are we to gainsay their reasons? The changes to the NRPM are tiny and discrete. No downsides to the implementation this policy have been offered in any

Re: [arin-ppml] Beneficial Owners

Ron wrote: But I certainly do not ask or expect ARIN to take on the "Internet Police" role with respect to those separate issues. I can and do however bemoan the fact that the two blocks in question were issued AT ALL... apparently to two fundamentally out-of-region players. I bemoan these

Re: [arin-ppml] Beneficial Owners

rld, I suspect problems will get greater. Albert Erdmann Network Administrator Paradise On Line Inc. On Fri, 13 Jul 2018, Mike Burns wrote: > Dear Albert, > > You can't sell transition space per the 8.3 and 8.4 transfer policies. > You could merge them with an 8.2 or series of 8.2 t

Re: [arin-ppml] Beneficial Owners

Dear Albert, You can't sell transition space per the 8.3 and 8.4 transfer policies. You could merge them with an 8.2 or series of 8.2 transfers. What ARIN needs to be sure is that those who ask for 4.10 and 4.4 are actually utilizing the addresses for that purpose. That's it. ARIN was smart in

Re: [arin-ppml] Beneficial Owners

+1 to William’s sentiments Regards, Mike From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of william manning Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 9:26 AM To: Roberts, Orin Cc: ARIN-PPML List Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Beneficial Owners I think the example, (2014, DE shell, owned by

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2017-13: Remove ARIN Review Requirements for Large IPv4 Reassignments/Reallocations

Hi John, I support this. I am all for streamlining the NRPM by removing artifacts from the free pool era. Regards, Mike From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of John Springer Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 2:07 PM To: arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: [arin-ppml]

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2018-1: Allow Inter-regional ASN Transfers

Hello, The transfer logs at APNIC and RIPE indicate that inter-regional transfers have been completed. I consider that objective evidence of need for this functionality. Can somebody provide a downside to the approval of this policy? Staff work? The heavy lifting has already been

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-9: Clarification of Initial Block Size for IPv4 ISP Transfers

I support the policy. What Jason misses below when he says “if they are willing to call themselves an ISP, and pay the appropriate fees.” And “for anyone who needs a /21 or less and is willing to pay an extra $400 annually for up to a /22 or, and extra $900 annually for up to a

Re: [arin-ppml] Inter-regional ASN transfers?

Hi John, Thanks and Happy Holidays. I submitted a proposal so we can continue the discussion. Regards, Mike From: John Curran [mailto:jcur...@arin.net] Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2017 1:38 PM To: Mike Burns <m...@iptrading.com> Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net List <arin-ppml

Re: [arin-ppml] Inter-regional ASN transfers?

Hi John APNIC and RIPE are doing it today. Surely the agreement you reference between RIRs about tracking has been achieved between those two registries. Can you provide any guidance on the timeline of the implementation period? Or the costs involved, so we can see if it's worth the effort?

Re: [arin-ppml] Inter-regional ASN transfers?

source for IPv4 transfers. That is a longer history of allocations and more short numbers in ARIN. Regards, Mike From: Chris Woodfield [mailto:ch...@semihuman.com] Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2017 11:01 AM To: Mike Burns <m...@iptrading.com> Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net Subje

Re: [arin-ppml] Inter-regional ASN transfers?

Hi Chris, We find demand for short ASNs, particularly in the APNIC region. The top part of the APNIC transfer list shows a lot of ASN transfers. https://www.apnic.net/manage-ip/manage-resources/transfer-resources/transfer-logs/ They cost roughly $1K. Regards, Mike Burns From: Chris

[arin-ppml] Inter-regional ASN transfers?

workaround, obtaining a new ASN in an appropriate RIR, is available for > all members of the community." > Input from staff or community on the current status of these objections is appreciated. Considering how it works between RIPE a

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-10: Repeal of Immediate Need for IPv4 Address Space (NRPM Section 4.2.1.6)

Support as written and appreciate the pruning of the NRPM. Mike Burns From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of Roberts, Orin Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 3:42 PM To: ARIN <i...@arin.net> Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2

Re: [arin-ppml] Post-ARIN-40 updates to 2017-4

I support as written for the reasons David describes. From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of David Farmer Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 10:27 AM To: Rob Seastrom Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Post-ARIN-40

Re: [arin-ppml] LAST CALL - Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements

+1 to "Should have stuck with should." I also oppose as written (amended) for the same reasons described below. Regards, Mike Burns -Original Message- From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of Michael Winters Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 10:33 AM T

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised: ARIN-2017-4: Remove Reciprocity Requirement for Inter-RIR Transfers

Hi Kevin, LACNIC will be presented with a one-way policy proposal in Montevideo in a few weeks. It has failed to reach consensus twice but was returned to the list, so it will be voted on again. https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2017-2 Regards, Mike -Original

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised: ARIN-2017-4: Remove Reciprocity Requirement for Inter-RIR Transfers

To: Mike Burns <m...@iptrading.com> Cc: ARIN <i...@arin.net>; arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Revised: ARIN-2017-4: Remove Reciprocity Requirement for Inter-RIR Transfers On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 1:49 PM, Mike Burns <m...@iptrading.com <mailto:m...@iptrading.

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised: ARIN-2017-4: Remove Reciprocity Requirement for Inter-RIR Transfers

e in APNIC or RIPE will allow his transfer to go through today. I support the policy but it would be far better to lose that additional sentence. Just drop the world reciprocal and if problems arise they can be dealt with later. Regards, Mike Burns __

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2017-6 draft policy

Let’s not. This is a really bad idea and if we don’t put a stop to it now, it will likely never get corrected. Owen Hi Owen, In almost 5 years of inter-regional transfers, David Farmer identified two transfers of /22s from ARIN into a one-way situation. At this rate, if it

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2017-6: Improve Reciprocity Requirements for Inter RIR Transfers

Hi David, https://www.apnic.net/manage-ip/manage-resources/transfer-resources/nir-ipv4-transfer/ CNNIC allows outbound transfers now. So of your statistics below, really only the two /22s to KRNIC are valid examples of transfers to one-way recipient NIRs. Frankly I believe both KRNIC

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2017-6 draft policy

will have no effect. On the other hand, denying needed addresses to these address-poor regions will affect them direly. Regards, Mike Burns From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of Rudolph Daniel Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2017 9:15 AM To: Owen DeLong &l

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN Draft Policy 2017-1: Clarify Slow Start for Transfers proposed updates

s rule to see if this matters to anybody, because if it matters to very few people (2%?) and if there is a workaround, then IMO we shouldn’t waste NRPM space on it. Regards, Mike From: Jason Schiller [mailto:jschil...@google.com] Sent: Monday, May 08, 2017 12:27 PM To: Mike Bu

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN Draft Policy 2017-1: Clarify Slow Start for Transfers proposed updates

Is there any interest in moving towards a slow-end of the needs based tests; where the minimum 12 months (in 8.3, 8.4, and 8.5.5) becomes 6, after a review period the 6 becomes 3 and later the 3 becomes none as the transfer market is monitored throughout the slow-end to ensure this isn't

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN Draft Policy 2017-1: Clarify Slow Start for Transfers proposed updates

, rendering the NRPM simpler, easier to use, and less cluttered by pointless artifacts from the free-pool era. So I don't support the proposal in its revised form. Regards, Mike Burns From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of WOOD Alison * DAS Sent

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-4: Remove Reciprocity Requirement for Inter-RIR Transfers

I support the proposal but would prefer the simple removal of the world “reciprocal” from 8.4. The other language is clutter that we don’t need in the NRPM, IMO. Regards, Mike Burns From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of Scott Leibrand Sent: Monday

Re: [arin-ppml] 2016-3 Revisited

not the one making rules based on frankly unsubstantiated fears. Where is your evidence?" Regards, Mike Owen > > Regards, > Mike > > > > -Original Message- > From: David R Huberman [mailto:dav...@panix.com] > Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 11:04 AM &g

Re: [arin-ppml] 2016-3 Revisited

To: Mike Burns <m...@iptrading.com> Cc: David Huberman <dav...@panix.com>; arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2016-3 Revisited No, Mike, You are missing that “an organization’s business purpose” may be something other than “running an operational network”. We ar

Re: [arin-ppml] 2016-3 Revisited

are tilting at windmills and my posts are exaggerated eye-rolling attempts. Regards, Mike -Original Message- From: David R Huberman [mailto:dav...@panix.com] Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 11:04 AM To: Mike Burns <m...@iptrading.com> Cc: 'Jason Schiller' <jschil...@google.com>

Re: [arin-ppml] 2016-3 Revisited

Huberman [mailto:dav...@panix.com] Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 10:43 AM To: Mike Burns <m...@iptrading.com> Cc: Jason Schiller <jschil...@google.com>; arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2016-3 Revisited Mike, I buy a /13. I abuse the spirit of 2016-3, meant for small

Re: [arin-ppml] 2016-3 Revisited

If that approach still doesn't work can you suggest some other mechanism to prevent abuse that does not prevent an organization who needs IP space from using this policy? Hi Jason, Why are we ignoring the mechanism that prevents organizations from buying un-needed anything? To

Re: [arin-ppml] 2016-9 Streamline Merger & Acquisition Transfers - Text modifications

Hi John, Support. Let’s not let policy artifacts from the free-pool era contribute to Whois inaccuracy. Mike Burns From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of John Springer Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 3:33 PM To: arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: [arin-ppml

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN Response to AFRINIC on Policy compatibility

To: Mike Burns <m...@iptrading.com> Cc: Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com>; ARIN-PPML List <arin-ppml@arin.net> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN Response to AFRINIC on Policy compatibility On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Mike Burns <m...@iptrading.com> wrote: > May I point o

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN Response to AFRINIC on Policy compatibility

certain Asian NIRs, and the precedent has not proved dangerous. Regards, Mike -Original Message- From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com] Sent: Friday, January 20, 2017 8:29 PM To: Mike Burns <m...@iptrading.com> Cc: Job Snijders <j...@ntt.net>; Scott Leibrand

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN Response to AFRINIC on Policy compatibility

I forget where the original numbers came from, but with a total of 130, obviously many /8s are missing. Probably this count is not considering legacy space, most of which is North American. Including those legacy addresses, the supply for much of the transfer market, the ratios are much more in

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN Response to AFRINIC on Policy compatibility

believe ARIN should join RIPE and remove the language about reciprocity, while maintaining the requirement for compatible needs testing. Regards, Mike Burns -Original Message- From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of David R Huberman Sent: Thursday, January 19

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-4: Transfers for new entrants

Support. From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of John Springer Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 3:39 PM To: arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-4: Transfers for new entrants Dear PPML, ARIN-2016-4 was accepted as

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-5: Post-IPv4-Free-Pool-Depletion Transfer Policy

to confusion with buyers who either don’t yet have an operational network, or buyers who are buying for strictly planning purposes. Regards, Mike From: Scott Leibrand [mailto:scottleibr...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 24, 2016 10:22 AM To: Mike Burns <m...@iptrading.

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-5: Post-IPv4-Free-Pool-Depletion Transfer Policy

[mailto:scottleibr...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 24, 2016 10:09 AM To: Mike Burns <m...@iptrading.com>; Michael Peddemors <mich...@linuxmagic.com>; John Curran <jcur...@arin.net> Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-5: Post-IPv4-Free-Pool-

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-5: Post-IPv4-Free-Pool-Depletion Transfer Policy

...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 12:31 PM To: Mike Burns <m...@iptrading.com> Cc: Andrew Dul <andrew@quark.net>; ARIN-PPML List <arin-ppml@arin.net> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-5: Post-IPv4-Free-Pool-Depletion Transfer Policy On Wed, Jun 22

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-5: Post-IPv4-Free-Pool-Depletion Transfer Policy

acquiring them for speculative purposes. Is the attestation required for first time initial transfers of the minimum? It doesn’t seem to read that way. Regards, Mike From: Scott Leibrand [mailto:scottleibr...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 12:16 PM To: Mike Burns &l

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-5: Post-IPv4-Free-Pool-Depletion Transfer Policy

Hi Scott, OK, I understand how that can be relevant in concert with the lack of needs test for the minimum. So is there no needs test for the minimum? Regards, Mike From: Scott Leibrand [mailto:scottleibr...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 12:16 PM To: Mike Burns

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-5: Post-IPv4-Free-Pool-Depletion Transfer Policy

Hi Andrew, I have a couple of questions about the policy proposal. On Section 8.5.2 Operational Use. First, why is this section even in there, does it serve some particular purpose? Second, why does it refer to assignments and allocations in a section devoted to transfers? Overall, do we

Re: [arin-ppml] LAST CALL for Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30 day utilization requirement in end-user IPv4 policy

Hi Chris, Thanks for your input. I have some issues with your assertions, inline. Reading this thread, as interesting as it has been over the past couple of weeks, makes a few things obvious. I make these assertions primarily to allow others to point out any glaring misreadings I may be

Re: [arin-ppml] Dynamics of a transfer environment without operational need assessment

I am answering Mr. Woodcock using the new subject line, I hope that is okay. Hi Bill, > On May 19, 2016, at 11:52 AM, Mike Burns < <mailto:m...@iptrading.com> > m...@iptrading.com> wrote: > I want community members to understand that this is evidence that the m

Re: [arin-ppml] Dynamics of a transfer environment without operational need assessment

Hi John, Given that all of our experience has been with needs-based transfer policies (which provide some back pressure to speculation, whether via the direct prohibition that is implied or the convolutions that is necessary to work around same), it is rather unclear if financial

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 128, Issue 7

6 12:17 PM To: Mike Burns <m...@iptrading.com> Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 128, Issue 7 On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Mike Burns <m...@iptrading.com> wrote: > The existence of your company and other "brokers" isn't evidence > enough

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 128, Issue 7

The existence of your company and other "brokers" isn't evidence enough that people want to make money solely by buying and selling v4 resources? Methinks you fail to see the forest for the trees! Regards, McTim Hi McTim, I'm really not sure what you are saying above, but actually the

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 128, Issue 7

Rent and profit seeking? That horse has long left the barn. But it's telling that arguments against this policy reveal themselves to be ideological in nature. Speculation?  Only existing in fevered imaginations. Absent in RIPE despite its "encouragement/enablement". Still waiting for evidence

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30-Day Utilization Requirement in End-User IPv4 Policy

I agree with Owen. I support the policy either way. Regards, Mike -Original Message- From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 8:42 PM To: David Farmer Cc: ARIN PPML

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

The RIPE issue related directly to the price of IP addresses being doled out needs-free to each LIR. The price then was the fees paid to RIPE plus any fees incurred in creating the new LIR business entity. The net price was still far lower than the price for a /22 on the transfer market. It was

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

and less cost to the ARIN community. Regards, Mike Burns ___ 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: http://lists

Re: [arin-ppml] Support for 2015-5 (Expand permitted out-of-region use of IPv4 space)

David says, "the time for RIRs being anything other than local language/time/etc is passed." If you agree, global policy changes will be needed to make it happen. Regards, Bill Herrin Hi Bill, Removing the needs test from paid transfers would solve this problem, too. Global policy not needed.

Re: [arin-ppml] Thoughts on 2015-7

I support the proposal. Regards, Mike Burns Sent from my Sprint phone div Original message /divdivFrom: Scott Leibrand scottleibr...@gmail.com /divdivDate:08/21/2015 11:14 AM (GMT-05:00) /divdivTo: William Herrin b...@herrin.us /divdivCc: arin-ppml@arin.net p...@arin.net

Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal Idea: Reassignment records for IPv4 End-Users

One more top post for a suggestion. I think the sub-delegation should include the option of port-range delegation. There was a proposal recently, maybe it was APNIC, for the enhancement of Whois database structure to include port ranges. Obviously this would help CGN providers to publish

Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal Idea: Reassignment records for IPv4 End-Users

I wonder if SWIPped addresses would be a sufficient display of utilization, or would ARIN need to investigate the SWIPped blocks more deeply to ensure utilization ratio of the parent end-user, if that end-user comes to ARIN looking to buy addresses and has to justify their purchase?

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

. Regards, Mike - Original Message - From: Owen DeLong To: Mike Burns Cc: Jason Schiller ; arin-ppml@arin.net Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2015 11:27 AM Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 I don’t see any problem with ARIN staff assisting an author in crafting language

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

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

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

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

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

, 2015 3:30 PM To: Mike Burns Cc: William Herrin; John Curran; arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2 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

Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2)

legacy legal rights which remain untested in court. Regards, Mike -Original Message- From: John Curran [mailto:jcur...@arin.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 3:34 PM To: Mike Burns Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2) On Jun 3

Re: [arin-ppml] On USG 'granting of rights' (was: ARIN-PPML 2015-2)

. Indeed ARIN appears to have sought every other avenue in which each case could be concluded without a judge having to reach the property question. That is also incorrect. Thanks! /John Well, I remember the Microsoft/Nortel sale of all-legacy addresses allocated to defunct entities being

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

email? In other words, which is primary, a contract granting me exclusive use of numbers on the Internet, or ARIN's control of their registry system? A registrar records property rights, it doesn't create them. Regards, Mike Burns From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-14: Needs Attestation for some IPv4 Transfers - Revised

market manipulation could occur under this policy? Regards, Mike Burns IPTrading.com ___ 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

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-14: Needs Attestation for some IPv4 Transfers - Revised

with the current language of Line 4. But so long as it is clear to everyone who considers the proposal I am fine with the current language. Regards, Mike From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 1:55 PM To: Mike Burns Cc: andrew@quark.net; arin-ppml

Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness

I'm uncomfortable with what Mr. Seastrom did there, choosing the example he did. As a community we strive to be inclusive, and one way to stifle conversation is to go ad hominem, even if obliquely. I hope we don't see more of that kind of thing on this list, nor language about trolls or

Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness

. Regards, Mike -Original Message- From: Rob Seastrom Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 3:17 PM To: Mike Burns Cc: Steven Ryerse ; Rob Seastrom ; arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness Mike Burns m...@iptrading.com writes: I'm uncomfortable with what Mr

Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness

would be bet is the best interests of the community, the stakes aren't mine to wager, nor are they yours.Mike: My bad?Regards,Mike - Original Message - From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com To: Mike Burns m...@iptrading.com Cc: Randy Carpenter rcar...@network1.net; Steven Ryerse srye

Re: [arin-ppml] Multi-homing justification removed?

Still, in the age of exhaustion the building case against needs testing should also remove multi-homing as a requirement to acquire your own address block so that you do not have to constantly renumber or be captive. -Martin Hannigan I personally would be more amenable to considering a policy

Re: [arin-ppml] Queue depth report?

Hi John, Thanks for the info. I don't think Geoff is properly adjusting for ARIN's team review rate, which is around 200 per month. Reading between the lines, I think this is about ARIN's max carrying rate without schedule slippage. Considering the nature of the remaining pool dregs, ARIN will

Re: [arin-ppml] Queue depth report?

The team review provides for serialization of requests which makes this possible, and hence it should continue even if one requestor has unmet need. Even after completion depletion, parties will want to know that they are being approved and placed on the list in the appropriate order.

Re: [arin-ppml] Team Review - policy matter? (was: Re: reverse COEstatement)

Hi Owen, I sent this from the wrong address so it didn't post to the list. I figured I would just ignore that, but since you replied I will answer. Free pool addresses are costless, yet have monetary value. For this reason it makes more sense to scrutinize free pool allocations to prevent a

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-20: Transfer Policy Slow Start and Simplified Needs Verification

Hi list, +1 to what David wrote. I would say it is a buyer's market, there are more sellers than buyers. Also demand for transfer IPv4 is not as high as demand for free pool IPv4 in the previous years. I believe this is due to companies being a litle more efficient internally. And there have

Re: [arin-ppml] reverse COE statement

. In the stewardship community’s expressed wisdom, conserving addresses in this way reduces your justifiable need for IPv4. Perversely, you are being punished for your conservation, although I am sure your NAT is functioning perfectly for you. Regards, Mike Burns From: Kevin Kargel Sent

Re: [arin-ppml] reverse COE statement

Team Review is being done for all IPv4 requests for space from ARIN's available inventory. 8.3 transfers are not from this pool of address space and therefore, are not being team reviewed. FYI, /John Thanks John! Can you share the reason for that? Why are transfer justifications not subject

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-20: Transfer PolicySlow Start and Simplified Needs Verification

-Original Message- From: Kevin Kargel Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 1:13 PM To: David Huberman ; John Curran Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net List (arin-ppml@arin.net) Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-20: Transfer PolicySlow Start and Simplified Needs Verification John,

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-20: Transfer PolicySlow Start and Simplified Needs Verification

with RIPE. Finally it allows us to stop with the deck-chair arranging and pay more attention to IPv6 policy. Regards Mike Burns ___ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-20: Transfer Policy Slow Start and Simplified Needs Verification

to that the fragmentation of the supply market and the whole idea is untenable. Regards, Mike ___Jason On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Mike Burns m...@iptrading.com wrote: Scott wrote: It seems to me that this proposal actually simplifies things a lot more than it appears at first

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-20: Transfer Policy Slow Start and Simplified Needs Verification

, slow growing, fast growing, and every other business scenario in the past? Regards, Mike On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 5:34 AM, Mike Burns m...@iptrading.com wrote: Hi Jason, However, assuming that 2014-14 is discussed first and does not pass, would you still oppose 2014-20

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-20: Transfer Policy Slow Start and Simplified Needs Verification

, with less of this danger and less risk of out-of-policy transfers which hold their own separate dangers. Regards, Mike On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Mike Burns m...@iptrading.com wrote: Hi Jason, I apologize for not commenting on this earlier, I decided to sit

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-20: Transfer Policy Slow Start and Simplified Needs Verification

. 8.3.2.3.2.1? While I support the recognition of the problems Jason identified, I am opposed to 2014-20. (Also I would counsel against regarding silence as approval.) Regards Mike Burns From: Jason Schiller Sent: Friday, September 12, 2014 12:13 PM To: ow...@nysernet.org ; Kevin Blumberg ; David

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-18: SimplifyingMinimumAllocations and Assignments

. Regards, Mike Burns ___ 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: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-18: Simplifying Minimum Allocations and Assignments

I support the proposal. How else are we going to get rid of the more than 1,000 /24s left as the dregs of decades of allocations? It will take a long time to dole out one /24 every three months to each needy applicant, do we want to extend this near-exhaust environment? -Original

Re: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - July 2014

I support further discussion of the RPKI issue. I don't think it will be difficult to overcome the issues raised by Mr. Huston, but since demand for Inter-RIR ASN transfers is low, there is little harm in waiting to get it right. I know there were some procedural wrinkles involved in early

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-17: Change Utilization Requirements from last-allocation to total-aggregate - revised

I think it will have exactly the opposite effect, actually. I think it lowers the barrier for smaller entities and new entrants while keeping roughly the same effective requirements for larger incumbents. Maybe if you can show how the barriers are reduced for smaller entities and new

Re: [arin-ppml] About needs basis in 8.3 transfers

You seem to think there is somebody, somewhere you can tap on the shoulder and offer a couple of billion and he can transfer hundreds of millions of addresses to you. Without the needs test, you can be sure every transfer will be booked and visible, unlike those transfers driven underground by

Re: [arin-ppml] About needs basis in 8.3 transfers

-Original Message- From: John Curran Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 9:51 AM To: Owen DeLong Cc: Mike Burns ; arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] About needs basis in 8.3 transfers On Jun 12, 2014, at 9:23 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: You continue to claim the existence

Re: [arin-ppml] About needs basis in 8.3 transfers

Mike - As someone actively seeking them out, perhaps you could organize a few of them to undertake a simpler (but quite worthwhile) activity? Specifically, the task of participating remotely in the next ARIN public policy consultation and showing support for those policy changes that

Re: [arin-ppml] About needs basis in 8.3 transfers

Use of the registry database for policy enforcement is not supportive of the primary reason for the existence of the registry system (there is a reason it's called a registry). It is also self-defeating. Get enough folks doing transfers outside of registry database and the database is no

Re: [arin-ppml] About needs basis in 8.3 transfers

Hi Matt, I put my comments below your signature. Regards, Mike See, this is why I support maintaining the needs-based decisionmaking around number allocations. Because it's far too easy for a really big company with a couple of billion dollars in the bank to decide that IPv6 is just too hard,

Re: [arin-ppml] About needs basis in 8.3 transfers

On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 5:40 PM, Steven Ryerse srye...@eclipse-networks.com wrote: Even one transfer that doesn't update the database is one too many Playing devils advocate then, I take it you are in favor of moving to rescind (and then re-issue) any IP Numbers for which the whois validation

Re: [arin-ppml] About needs basis in 8.3 transfers

Never claimed they were. However, Steven stated that even one transfer not being recorded in the database was unacceptable. We now learn that accuracy is not actually a fundamental principal. I will choose to dismiss such assertions in the future as being a distraction from the real issues

Re: [arin-ppml] About needs basis in 8.3 transfersarin-p...@arin.net List (arin-ppml@arin.net)arin-ppml@arin.net;

that somebody would contact /23 and /24 holders in order to speculate fills me with mirth. I kind of think a speculator would be more efficient if he called a couple of brokers. Regards, Mike -Original Message- From: Owen DeLong Sent: Monday, June 09, 2014 1:30 PM To: Mike Burns Cc

Re: [arin-ppml] About needs basis in 8.3transfersarin-p...@arin.net List (arin-ppml@arin.net)arin-ppml@arin.net;

. Regards, Mike -Original Message- From: John Curran Sent: Monday, June 09, 2014 2:55 PM To: Mike Burns Cc: Owen DeLong ; arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] About needs basis in 8.3transfersarin-p...@arin.net List (arin-ppml@arin.net); On Jun 9, 2014, at 2:36 PM, Mike Burns m

Re: [arin-ppml] About needs basis in 8.3 transfers

Hi Owen, Sorry for the top-post. Owen, you continue to deny the danger to the registry posed by the needs test, comparing it to crackpot beliefs and describing it as FUD. It is indeed hard to demonstrate registry inaccuracies, even when aware of them, due to registry access, confidentiality,

Re: [arin-ppml] About needs basis in 8.3 transfers

appropriate? Regards, Mike Burns IPTrading.com ___ 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: http

Re: [arin-ppml] About needs basis in 8.3 transfers

And secondarily, what size of un-needs tested transfer would be an acceptable balance between the benefits of the needs test and the costs of the needs test? /24 seems like a perfectly reasonable balancing point to me. I’d be willing to conduct an experiment on a temporary basis at /20 for

Re: [arin-ppml] About needs basis in 8.3 transfers

clause into 8.3 and 8.4. Regards, Mike Burns ___ 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: http://lists.arin.net

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-208 Reduce All Minimum Allocation/Assignment Units to /24

Or support the change I proposed allowing one small needs-free transfer per year. Two simple clauses solves many of the MAU issues. NRPM tatter-free. Regards, Mike Burns -Original Message- From: William Herrin Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 12:29 AM To: Kevin Blumberg Cc: arin-ppml

<    1   2   3   4   >