YES support. This policy never should have existed.
As someone who has personally handled 5 different network purchases and
integration of those networks, this policy is problematic. The process of
integration requires more address space than what is ever currently in use with
a purchase. If
Hi Azinger,
My standpoint to this proposal is neutral. Someone inside ARIN told that
AOL has done the 8.2 transfer recently. The so-called conflict and
utilisation rate test is just some bureau language left there without
preventing this transfer.
ARIN is so nice to talk and assist on the
My former email on this subject still stands. There should NOT be
utilization language in the 8.2 transfers, for all the reasons I listed
before, and with potential options if there is dread of some type of abuse
of 8.2.
Whether or not and 8.2 transfer occurs is not the point, the point is the
Niki:
For most economists and lawyers, the definition of a property right involves
the right to use, the right to exclude others from using, and the right to
transfer. As John's message makes clear, all those rights are present in the
number block lease you get from ARIN. So although the RSA
Hi John,
In basis of your reply, if the block is underutilised,ARIN will either ask
the company to return the IPs or transfer to other third party via 8.3
transfer after our 8.2 transfer.
Say we have two /16 after this 8.2 transfer, what if we only transfer one
/16 to the other third party
Hi Milton,
thanks for your inspiring reply. Now i know that we have the ownership
of those IPs.as you are one of the AC, i take your reply seriously and
also this is good news for the community, especially for those legacy
holders, if the holder of ARIN non-legacy IPs can have the ownership'
Niki
In no way should you take Milton's reply as an official stance or answer from
the AC. He should have made it quite clear that he was speaking only as Milton
and in anyway representing the AC.
Thank you
John S
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 3, 2014, at 4:45 PM, xiaofan yang
On Apr 3, 2014, at 7:33 PM, xiaofan yang
nikiyan...@gmail.commailto:nikiyan...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi John,
In basis of your reply, if the block is underutilised,ARIN will either ask the
company to return the IPs or transfer to other third party via 8.3 transfer
after our 8.2 transfer.
On Apr 3, 2014, at 7:43 PM, xiaofan yang nikiyan...@gmail.com wrote:
thanks for your inspiring reply. Now i know that we have the ownership of
those IPs.as you are one of the AC, i take your reply seriously and also
this is good news for the community, especially for those legacy
On Apr 2, 2014, at 4:27 PM, xiaofan yang nikiyan...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi John,
I have further enquiry about ARIN 8.2 process.
Number one:I am also worried about the costs of doing a 8.2 transfer followed
by a 8.3 transfer. I wonder if I will have to involve the legal help to deal
*Hi John, *
*We would like to do a 8.2transfer because of our restructure. *
*However, the transferred ips are underutilized. based on your comments
in the list, it seems that if those ips are lack of utilisation, ARIN will
ask us to return those ips or ARIN will not approve our transfer ?*
On Apr 1, 2014, at 7:34 PM, xiaofan yang
nikiyan...@gmail.commailto:nikiyan...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi John,
We would like to do a 8.2transfer because of our restructure.
However, the transferred ips are underutilized. based on your comments in the
list, it seems that if those ips are lack of
Hi John,
Thanks for your reply. So if we do not want to return the address, we can
have them transferred for sale?
and ARIN will not treat our 8.2 transfer as the disguise of 8.3 transfer
if 8.3 transfer come next after the 8.2 transfer?
Niki
On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 10:50 AM, John Curran
On Apr 1, 2014, at 10:00 PM, xiaofan yang nikiyan...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi John,
Thanks for your reply. So if we do not want to return the address, we can
have them transferred for sale?
and ARIN will not treat our 8.2 transfer as the disguise of 8.3 transfer if
8.3 transfer come next
Hello,
In discussing opposition to 2014-9, and why audited needs-basis is still very
much important,
Owen laid out the following point in support of needs assessments in NRPM 8.2:
1. To raise the visibility when an 8.3 transfer is being attempted through
structures designed
to disguise it
-Original Message-
From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On
Behalf Of David Farmer
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 3:51 PM
On 3/21/14, 09:10 , Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
soapbox
Any MA, or organization changes, have a cost regarding business
records,
On Mar 21, 2014, at 15:51 , David Farmer far...@umn.edu wrote:
On 3/21/14, 09:10 , Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
soapbox
Any MA, or organization changes, have a cost
regarding business records, and it is incumbent
on the organization to be prepared to pay that cost
for changes. Updating ARIN
On 3/20/2014 3:11 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I think fear mongering about the “usefulness of the registry” by those
that seek to eliminate all policy enforcement in the registry should
be seen for what it is and that we as a community must make a decision
whether we want to have reasonable
On 3/20/2014 5:41 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I see several potential downsides, not the least of which is a strong
motivation to disguise 8.3 transfers as 8.2 style transactions.
That's been happening since before there was an 8.3. What does this
change? As has been pointed out, the reclaim
On 3/20/2014 8:35 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
In my buy-merger-sell experience, most companies don't complete
transfers post MA because they dont want to deal with ARIN. It's not
worth the difficulty. Accuracy of the registry suffers again.
If they don't want to deal with ARIN (and I
On Mar 21, 2014, at 2:10 PM, Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at wrote:
If they don't want to deal with ARIN (and I agree, I've seen a lot of that),
why even start the 8.2 transfer process? All this says is that in addition to
that 40% abandon rate, we *also* have people not even starting the
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 6:39 AM, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote:
..
Matthew -
A typical example
.
At this point, some number of requesters will abandon the process.
I can, for some values of understanding, understand this.
But I think that is a failure by the requester, not ARIN,
On Mar 21, 2014, at 2:04 PM, Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at wrote:
I don't see a *documented* 40% abandon rate on 8.2 transfer requests as fear
mongering. I strongly suspect that every single one of those abandoned
requests is a case where a MA *actually happened* and yet, because it was
: Resolve Conflict Between RSA
and 8.2 Utilization Requirements
On Mar 20, 2014, at 13:01 , Heather Schiller heather.ska...@gmail.com wrote:
As a shepherd for this proposal, I would like to solicit community feedback on
the proposed text.
Aside from the general support/against.. some things
Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
soapbox
Any MA, or organization changes, have a cost
regarding business records, and it is incumbent
on the organization to be prepared to pay that cost
for changes. Updating ARIN records (and the cost
of doing so) is no different, and should not have a
special out
On Mar 22, 2014, at 5:04 AM, Meows me...@techie.com wrote:
As a watcher of this since it's inception I have to jump in here as this is
getting way off the rails, gosh it is reminding me of the affordable health
care act no one can afford.
Point one RE:
As an ARIN Hostmaster for 10
On Mar 22, 2014, at 5:58 AM, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote:
(Draft Policy ARIN-2014-9, which removes the need
for ARIN to seek utilization during M M transfers),
Apologies for the typo... should read M A (as in
Merger and Acquisition address transfers per NRPM 8.2)
ARIN welcomes
On 3/21/14, 09:10 , Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
soapbox
Any MA, or organization changes, have a cost
regarding business records, and it is incumbent
on the organization to be prepared to pay that cost
for changes. Updating ARIN records (and the cost
of doing so) is no different, and should not have
As a shepherd for this proposal, I would like to solicit community feedback
on the proposed text.
Aside from the general support/against.. some things to consider:
Do you concur with or have any comment on the problem statement?
If you support the problem statement, do you support removing
On Mar 20, 2014, at 13:01 , Heather Schiller heather.ska...@gmail.com wrote:
As a shepherd for this proposal, I would like to solicit community feedback
on the proposed text.
Aside from the general support/against.. some things to consider:
Do you concur with or have any comment on the
My issue with this proposal is that it might create an expectation that
operators will start routing that space. I just see a s**t storm when
Customer A gets a /29 and no one can reach it. I see it, in the long
term, generating a lot of problems.
Aaron
On 3/20/2014 3:06 PM, Owen DeLong
On 14-03-20 01:01 PM, Heather Schiller wrote:
Remove from 8.2:
In the event that number resources of the combined organizations are no
longer justified under ARIN policy at the time ARIN becomes aware of the
transaction, through a transfer request or otherwise, ARIN will work
with the resource
We can work that out in operator groups. ARIN is a steward of numbers,
not a regulator of operators and their routing policies.
Not adopting this will contribute another to the pile of existing
reasons as to why the registry is hugely inaccurate.
Best,
-M
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 4:30 PM,
Thank you for looking that up and inserting it, very useful!
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Michael Peddemors
mich...@linuxmagic.com wrote:
On 14-03-20 01:01 PM, Heather Schiller wrote:
Remove from 8.2:
In the event that number resources of the combined organizations are no
longer
Corporation
Senior IT/OPS Program Manager (GFS)
From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf
Of Owen DeLong
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2014 1:07 PM
To: Heather Schiller
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-9: Resolve Conflict Between RSA
Hi David,
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 4:48 PM, David Huberman
david.huber...@microsoft.com wrote:
In contrast to my friend Owen, not only do I believe there is a very serious
issue, but I believe this
proposal is necessary for ARIN to have any hope of being relevant in the
years to come. I
On 14-03-20 01:48 PM, David Huberman wrote:
John Curran can give a more accurate and nuanced history, but as best I can
recall, ARIN
tried to bring more legacy registration holders into the registry system by
offering a
Legacy Registration Services Agreement. One of the takeaways from that
)
-Original Message-
From: McTim [mailto:dogwal...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2014 2:00 PM
To: David Huberman
Cc: Owen DeLong; Heather Schiller; arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-9: Resolve Conflict Between RSA
and 8.2 Utilization Requirements
Hi David
I'm not sure I see an actual conflict between 8.2 and the RSA. This is the
relevant line, I think, from the RSA.
However, ARIN may refuse to permit transfers or additional allocations of
number resources
to Holder if Holder's Included Number Resources are not utilized in accordance
with
On Mar 20, 2014, at 2:06 PM, Michael Peddemors mich...@linuxmagic.com wrote:
On 14-03-20 01:48 PM, David Huberman wrote:
John Curran can give a more accurate and nuanced history, but as best I can
recall, ARIN
tried to bring more legacy registration holders into the registry system by
On Mar 21, 2014, at 4:48 AM, David Huberman david.huber...@microsoft.com
wrote:
Think about that for a moment please: legitimate MA activity occurred, but
Whois never
got updated. That's a failure of the system. Why does it fail?
Excellent question.
The common scenario is straight
On Mar 20, 2014, at 3:28 PM, David Huberman david.huber...@microsoft.com
wrote:
Last email from me, I promise. I don't want to abuse the hospitality of the
list.
Owen, I agree with you when you write that our policies generally work well
and we shouldn't muck with them.
I’m not saying
On 3/20/14, 15:01 , Heather Schiller wrote:
As a shepherd for this proposal, I would like to solicit community
feedback on the proposed text.
Aside from the general support/against.. some things to consider:
Do you concur with or have any comment on the problem statement?
The problem
David Farmer wrote:
Technically, there is only one word in the paragraph in question that is
fundamentally in conflict with the RSA, that is reclaim. Also, with
the suspension of sections 4.6 and 4.7 and ARIN-2014-10, I'd suggest
that aggregate will essentially become a NO-OP.
So, I fully
In my buy-merger-sell experience, most companies don't complete transfers
post MA because they dont want to deal with ARIN. It's not worth the
difficulty. Accuracy of the registry suffers again.
Best,
Martin
On Thursday, March 20, 2014, Sweeting, John john.sweet...@twcable.com
wrote:
Hi
On 20 February 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted
ARIN-prop-199 Resolve Conflict Between RSA and 8.2 Utilization
Requirements as a Draft Policy.
Draft Policy ARIN-2014-9 is below and can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_9.html
You are encouraged to discuss the
46 matches
Mail list logo
