On Tue, 11 Mar 2014, David Farmer wrote:
On 3/10/14, 23:13 , Brandon Ross wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2014, Andrew Dul wrote:
Specifically, do you support raising the number of participants required
to obtain an IXP micro allocation from 2 to 3?
An off-list conversation helped me clarify my
Different issues. Two will always be a PNI. Submit other proposals for
other issues please.
Best,
Martin
On Tuesday, March 11, 2014, Andrew Dul andrew@quark.net wrote:
For those who are concerned about making sure these types of blocks are
available in the future, there are two other
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Martin Hannigan hanni...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Scott Leibrand
scottleibr...@gmail.com wrote:
Any reason two small rural players shouldn't start with
a PA /30 and renumber into a larger block if/when they get a third
participant?
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 2:01 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Martin Hannigan hanni...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Scott Leibrand
scottleibr...@gmail.com wrote:
Any reason two small rural players shouldn't start with
a PA
The ARIN AC would appreciate input from the community on this policy.
Specifically, do you support raising the number of participants required
to obtain an IXP micro allocation from 2 to 3?
Thanks,
Andrew
On 3/4/2014 12:13 PM, ARIN wrote:
Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7
Section 4.4 Micro
While on the surface this might seem prudent, it may be onerous for
smaller players. More information might be needed to determine adverse
cases, or possibly some exemption for rural players that might not be
able to attain a 3rd participant.
On 14-03-10 08:37 AM, Andrew Dul wrote:
The ARIN
Oh, BTWI don't have any problem with increasing from 2 to 3, but am
against it for moreand, I may be willing to carve out an exception for
Caribbean communities still encumbered by limited competition. There, have
a public exchange already in existence may support future competition. I'd
No exceptions for Caribbean. Not necessary. And not part of policy so no
need to rather already.
The addresses are being protected for the future, ncluding tbe Carribean.
Feel free to elaborate on more, I'm interested.
On Monday, March 10, 2014, Bill Darte billda...@gmail.com wrote:
Oh,
On Mon, 10 Mar 2014, David Huberman wrote:
Michael Peddemors wrote:
While on the surface this might seem prudent, it may be onerous for smaller
players.
More information might be needed to determine adverse cases, or possibly some
exemption for rural players that might not be able to attain
On Mon, 10 Mar 2014, Scott Leibrand wrote:
Any reason two small rural players shouldn't start with a PA /30 and
renumber into a larger block if/when they get a third participant?
Yes, renumbering is hard. Renumbering is even harder for rural entities
that don't have tons of high end network
On Mon, 10 Mar 2014, Andrew Dul wrote:
Specifically, do you support raising the number of participants required
to obtain an IXP micro allocation from 2 to 3?
An off-list conversation helped me clarify my concern about raising the
requirement. It's not just the burden of renumbering alone
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Andrew Dul andrew@quark.net wrote:
The ARIN AC would appreciate input from the community on this policy.
Specifically, do you support raising the number of participants required
to obtain an IXP micro allocation from 2 to 3?
I support raising the number to
Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7
Section 4.4 Micro Allocation Conservation Update
Revised text for ARIN-2014-7 is below and can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_7.html
The AC will evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance
of this draft policy with ARIN's
13 matches
Mail list logo
