On Sep 3, 2014, at 1:09 AM, Derek Calanchini der...@cnets.net wrote:
John,
That is GREAT NEWS! Given that, there will be no need to fudge...When I say
fudge, I manage my IP's very tightly right now...I have been using the same 4
class c's for almost 15 years. I could easily, legitimately
On Sep 2, 2014, at 11:16 PM, Derek Calanchini der...@cnets.net wrote:
Sorry, I replied to the wrong one, this is the one I am waiting on:
ARIN-prop-208 Reduce All Minimum Allocation/Assignment Units to /24
Much clearer now... Policy ARIN-2014-13: Reduce All Minimum
Allocation/Assignment
John,
That is GREAT NEWS! Given that, there will be no need to
fudge...When I say fudge, I manage my IP's very tightly right
now...I have been using the same 4 class c's for almost 15 years.
I could easily, legitimately justify a /21 by switching to a
I support this.
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 8:44 PM, Kevin Blumberg kev...@thewire.ca wrote:
I'm sending out a revised version of prop-208. Included is an attachment
with a redline version to assist.
I would appreciate any feedback of support or questions.
Thanks,
Kevin Blumberg
I support this.
From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf
Of Kelly Hays
Sent: Friday, May 9, 2014 1:20 PM
To: Kevin Blumberg
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net List (arin-ppml@arin.net)
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-208 Reduce All Minimum Allocation/Assignment
Units
List (arin-ppml@arin.net)
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-208 Reduce All Minimum Allocation/Assignment
Units to /24
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 9:44 PM, Kevin Blumberg kev...@thewire.ca wrote:
I'm sending out a revised version of prop-208. Included is an attachment with
a redline version
I support.
On Tue, 2014-05-06 at 01:44 +, Kevin Blumberg wrote:
I'm sending out a revised version of prop-208. Included is an attachment with
a redline version to assist.
I would appreciate any feedback of support or questions.
Thanks,
Kevin Blumberg
ARIN-prop-208 Reduce All
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 2:10 AM, Kevin Blumberg kev...@thewire.ca wrote:
Do you support the substantive changes in this policy?
I support Owen's original policy with the minor tweaks to deal with
the couple of things he missed.
I do not support the policy as rewritten. The rewrite is, I believe,
On May 5, 2014, at 23:49 , William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 2:10 AM, Kevin Blumberg kev...@thewire.ca wrote:
Do you support the substantive changes in this policy?
I support Owen's original policy with the minor tweaks to deal with
the couple of things he missed.
@arin.net List (arin-ppml@arin.net)
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-208 Reduce All Minimum
Allocation/Assignment Units to /24
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 9:44 PM, Kevin Blumberg kev...@thewire.ca wrote:
I'm sending out a revised version of prop-208. Included is an attachment
with a redline version
+1 Support
On 14-05-05 06:44 PM, Kevin Blumberg wrote:
I'm sending out a revised version of prop-208. Included is an attachment with a
redline version to assist.
I would appreciate any feedback of support or questions.
Thanks,
Kevin Blumberg
ARIN-prop-208 Reduce All Minimum
In short, because as specified, the changes ended up with the NRPM being
somewhat nonsensical.
This revision does not change any of the original inent, preserves most of the
original text of the proposal, and leaves the NRPM in tact with legible text
after making the changes.
Do you have a
Estimated thirty changes to text. It appears that the AC just couldn't
resist modifying what we all agreed on en masse.
It'll take some time to evaluate all thirty plus changes. I'll reserve my
comments for the NANOG PPC in Bellevue.
Best,
-M
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 9:57 PM, Owen DeLong
Great. Digest it and then determine if you support it or not. This
proposal is the same as that which has received all the popular support
only it is now a complete, comprehensive proposal that does not leave the
NRPM in tatters.
bd
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 9:08 PM, Martin Hannigan
Support the fully fleshed out redline etc version.
-george
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 6:44 PM, Kevin Blumberg kev...@thewire.ca wrote:
I'm sending out a revised version of prop-208. Included is an attachment
with a redline version to assist.
I would appreciate any feedback of support or
Actually, Bill, it's not. There are significant changes in the tone and
tenor and therefore how it will be interpreted and how people familiar with
the previous iteration will now have to adapt to figure out how to satisfy
the borg with this iteration. It may appear easy, that the staff is super
Interesting estimate.
The policy text contains a total of 9 NRPM sections which are modified. I
suppose if you want to contemplate each single deletion and insertion as a
separate text change, then there are, in fact, exactly 30 total changes, but
most of them were, in fact, part of the
Owen, no one is surprised you're minimizing the changes. Of course you are.
:-) That's alright. The point here is that if this is to become law
sooner than later ARIN needs much more than the usual weak support.
The redline that you all chose to put forth appears to be little more than
lipstick
Martin -
The original proposal and this draft both seemed straightforwards (and
easily supportable) to me.
Can you please articulate in more detail what your objections are, both in
theory and in the textual changes/details?
I honestly do not currently understand what your issue(s) are. I
19 matches
Mail list logo
