Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

+1 Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 26, 2023, at 2:23 PM, Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML > wrote: > >  > >> On Oct 26, 2023, at 10:11, William Herrin wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 10:01 AM Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML >>> wrote: >>> I don’t see working for an address broker as an inherent

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

+1 Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 26, 2023, at 11:43 AM, Adam Thompson wrote: > > I can't believe I'm taking this position now, but I guess it's 2023 so here > we are... > > I don't agree that an IP broker *inherently* has a problematic conflict of > interest with ARIN, any more than every

Re: [arin-ppml] Tenfold fee increases?

We have to live in the real world and business is what has driven the Internet up to this point, and businesses including IP Brokers will help drive it into the future. No businesses then the internet is just an educational platform. My 2 cents. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 1, 2023, at 9:23 PM,

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2: Grandfathering of Organizations Removed from Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16

+1 Steven Ryerse President srye...@eclipse-networks.com | C: 770.656.1460 100 Ashford Center North | Suite 110 | Atlanta, Georgia 30338 -Original Message- From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of Mike Burns Sent: Friday, July 17, 2020 10:59 AM To: hostmas...@uneedus.com;

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2019-19 Require IPv6 before receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

No no no no. Sent from my iPhone On Jan 18, 2020, at 2:07 AM, John Springer <3jo...@gmail.com> wrote: ? No, no and again, no. John Springer On Mon, Jan 13, 2020, 09:06 Andrew Dul mailto:andrew@quark.net>> wrote: Happy New Year everyone... We had a robust discussion on this list before

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2019-19 Require IPv6 before receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

I completely disagree with any attempt to force IPv6 adoption via IPv4 policy. The right incentive to go to IPv6 is market incentive (i.e. Customer Demand). Trying to use policies based on IPv4 from an RIR as force is the absolute wrong way to garner IPv6 adoption. As everyone knows, early

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

I agree with David. The Internet grew because folks could decide best how to use it. Trying to force IPv6 is opposite of what made the Internet a great place to begin with. We have had IPv6 for many years but I’ve yet to have a customer ask specifically for it. As IPv6 continues to grow in

Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2019-10: Inter-RIR M

+1 Sent from my iPhone On Oct 12, 2019, at 6:59 PM, William Herrin wrote:  On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 6:29 AM mailto:hostmas...@uneedus.com>> wrote: I agree. The only reason for this transfer thing was the shortage of IPv4 addresses and 16 bit ASN numbers. There is no shortage of IPv6

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-17: Returned Addresses to the 4.10 Reserved Pool

I agree -1 Steven Ryerse President 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 770.656.1460 - Cell 770.399.9099 - Office 770.392.0076 - Fax [cid:image001.jpg@01D55390.2480E240]℠ Eclipse Networks, Inc. Conquering Complex Networks℠ From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of Owen DeLong

Re: [arin-ppml] Looking for final show of support on revised Advisory Council Recommendation Regarding NRPM 4.1.8. Unmet Requests

I would add that the current wait list is the best view we have of what the marketplace needs, so if a minimum is to be established it should take into account the actual requests for resources that are in the queue. Also 2 year hold is the compromise. My two cents. Steven Ryerse President

Re: [arin-ppml] Looking for final show of support on revised Advisory Council Recommendation Regarding NRPM 4.1.8. Unmet Requests

+1 for toms comments Sent from my iPhone On Jun 6, 2019, at 3:03 PM, Tom Pruitt mailto:tpru...@stratusnet.com>> wrote: No -- I can not support the new policy if applied to the current waiting list. -- I don’t support applying the new restriction (only Orgs holding a /20 or less can get on

Re: [arin-ppml] IP leasing policy

It would be great if this was a perfect world but it’s not. Partly because of ARIN policies of the past, that horse is already out of the barn for ipv4. Steven Ryerse President 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 www.eclipse-networks.com

Re: [arin-ppml] Waiting List IPv4 blocks transferred after issuance

It all sounds good in theory but it is pretty much impossible to enforce a ban on leasing IP space to another organization. If AT has a very large customer who wants to lease a /20 and AT has it and wants to lease it to them, it’s the exact same thing as if a company we’ve never heard of wants

Re: [arin-ppml] Fwd: Advisory Council Recommendation Regarding NRPM 4.1.8. Unmet Requests

Real life may be that larger sizes never come available, but if the size does come available and an org is next on the list and it can be justified within ARIN’s normal policies, then it should be assigned regardless of size. +1 to this comment. Steven Ryerse President 100 Ashford Center

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers

Although I agree conceptually, I'm not sure its practical to have all policies apply to both IP4 & IP6. They are different and the differences require polices that cover the differences. Steven Ryerse President 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA  30338 770.656.1460 - Cell

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-2: Waiting List Block Size Restriction

Trying to pick a limit such as a /22 is arbitrary and an argument for and against that number or any other number can always be made. This is another attempt to somehow save IP v4 and we already know it can’t be saved. The market is currently balancing out the IP v4 supply and it will