John,
On Mar 19, 2014, at 11:47 AM, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote:
Also, I believe ARIN is the wrong place for such constraints. I believe
operators should make the decision on such matters
I also believe that operators should set such constraints (if desired),
They do. It's called
There has not been a lot of feedback on this proposal. It would be nice to have
more input from a broader cross-section of the community.
At present, I am leaning towards recommending that we abandon this proposal for
lack of support by the community. If you support this action, please speak
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 1:27 PM, David Huberman
david.huber...@microsoft.com wrote:
Hello,
As the author, I proposed this policy because it is not ARIN's role to
artificially regulate minimum block sizes. I feel this is especially in a
post-exhaustion world, which is very quickly coming.
)
-Original Message-
From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf
Of Owen DeLong
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 9:18 AM
To: ARIN-PPML List
Subject: [arin-ppml] 2014-3 Remove 8.2/8.3/8.4 Minimum IPv4 Block Size
Requirements
There has not been a lot of feedback
Leibrand [mailto:scottleibr...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 11:00 AM
To: David Huberman
Cc: ARIN-PPML List
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-3 Remove 8.2/8.3/8.4 Minimum IPv4 Block Size
Requirements
I am not speaking in favor of the status quo (a /24 minimum transfer size).
However, IMO having
[mailto:scottleibr...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Wednesday, March 19, 2014 11:00 AM
*To:* David Huberman
*Cc:* ARIN-PPML List
*Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-3 Remove 8.2/8.3/8.4 Minimum IPv4 Block
Size Requirements
I am not speaking in favor of the status quo (a /24 minimum transfer size).
However
But regardless of the legal piece, I see no upside, and quite a bit of
downside, to allowing IPv4 /32 transfers.
Please articulate the quite a bit of downside. If we ignore the legal piece
of your argument, as you said to, what are the problems with /32 transfers to
the technical operations
On Mar 19, 2014, at 7:22 PM, Scott Leibrand scottleibr...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm thinking about things like a lawsuit where the plaintiff gets awarded all
of the defendant's assets in question, and the plaintiff then asks ARIN to
transfer the IPv4 defendant's /32 to them.
When that has
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
There has not been a lot of feedback on this proposal. It would be nice to
have more input from a broader cross-section of the community.
At present, I am leaning towards recommending that we abandon this
proposal for lack
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 11:34 AM, David Huberman
david.huber...@microsoft.com wrote:
But regardless of the legal piece, I see no upside, and quite a bit of
downside, to allowing IPv4 /32 transfers.
Please articulate the quite a bit of downside. If we ignore the legal
piece of your
(GFS)
*From:*Scott Leibrand [mailto:scottleibr...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Wednesday, March 19, 2014 11:00 AM
*To:* David Huberman
*Cc:* ARIN-PPML List
*Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-3 Remove 8.2/8.3/8.4 Minimum IPv4 Block
Size Requirements
I am not speaking in favor of the status quo (a /24 minimum
Manager (GFS)
From: Scott Leibrand [mailto:scottleibr...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 11:52 AM
To: David Huberman
Cc: ARIN-PPML List
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2014-3 Remove 8.2/8.3/8.4 Minimum IPv4 Block Size
Requirements
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 11:34 AM, David Huberman
david.huber
12 matches
Mail list logo
