Total of 34 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Dec 1 00:53:04 EST 2017
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
20.59% |7 | 23.37% | 157664 | o...@delong.com
11.76% |4 | 12.77% |86179 | abag...@omninet.io
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 6:25 PM, Larry Ash wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 17:30:41 -0600
> David Farmer wrote:
>
>> Larry,
>>
>> Out of curiosity, are the reassignments you refer to Simple or Detailed
>> Reassignments? I ask be cause this policy should only affect Detailed
>> Reassignments, as t
Larry,
If I understand you correctly, then this policy won’t affect you.
The point of this policy is that if you do a reassignment that produces a new
POC for a known organization,
ARIN will make a good-faith effort to contact that organization and make sure
the action is valid and in line with
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 17:30:41 -0600
David Farmer wrote:
Larry,
Out of curiosity, are the reassignments you refer to Simple or Detailed
Reassignments? I ask be cause this policy should only affect Detailed
Reassignments, as they have their own POCs, and it is those POC will have
to be validated
Larry,
Out of curiosity, are the reassignments you refer to Simple or Detailed
Reassignments? I ask be cause this policy should only affect Detailed
Reassignments, as they have their own POCs, and it is those POC will have
to be validated because of this policy. Simple Reassignments don't have
t
I oppose this Policy,
The result of this would be I would have to pretty much stop SWIP submissions.
Many of my reassignments are
small enough that SWIP is optional anyway. Of the aprox 110 reassignments I
have made, 3 have someone there that could
respond to an issue, one of which for some rea
While SWIP assignments are used for determining the amount of addressses
in use, there is nothing in the current rules that would require reporting
this data down to the individual customer level in most cases.
As an example, most ISP's/LIR's provide each customer with a single IPv4
address fo
> On Nov 29, 2017, at 22:08 , Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
>
> And I will point out that the entire point of validating POCs is to discover
> things like /16's that haven't been used for 15 years.
I’m not convinced this is true.
I think the entire point of validating POCs is to make sure that a
> On Nov 30, 2017, at 05:38 , hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote:
>
> I support this policy.
>
> Giving ISP's/LIR's the ability to add reassignment contacts without
> verification from the contacts being added I think was always wrong. Often,
> the email added was NOT someone who actually processed
IMO, it is absolutely how the system should work.
Owen
> On Nov 30, 2017, at 07:51 , Chris Woodfield wrote:
>
> One point to make on this proposal is that this may change how ISPs assign
> blocks, given that both transfers and allocations have needs-based policies
> in force (for both v4 and
Can we please take this rat-hole out of the policy discussion and move it to
an appropriate list? Fees are _NOT_ the purview of the PPML or the ARIN PDP.
Owen
> On Nov 30, 2017, at 08:51 , Andrew Bagrin wrote:
>
> That's why a suggested a fee, to make that space find us instead of us
> finding
That's why a suggested a fee, to make that space find us instead of us
finding it.
I can see this is not really of interest and the bigger interest is to
launch v6 and forget about v4, so I'll stick to the plan.
-Original Message-
From: hostmas...@uneedus.com [mailto:hostmas...@uneedus.com
Private space is a valid use, as this is one of the only ways to ensure
uniqueness. Look at the US Postal Service as an example of this. They
have gobs of mail sorting machines on their class A, none of which is
exposed to the internet. Their public facing services are also in the
lower port
The mythical space is 168.86.0.0/16 direct assignment NATIO-42
https://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-168-86-0-0-1/pft?s=168.86.1.1
I got a hold of it when we acquire United Artists. They used it as private
space.
I just did a ping sweep and got no replies. Nothing on BGP dig either.
I have a hard
One point to make on this proposal is that this may change how ISPs assign
blocks, given that both transfers and allocations have needs-based policies in
force (for both v4 and v6), and SWIPs are generally used as evidence of
utilization of existing blocks. With this proposal in force, adding a
Unless the space is legacy, I do not see how space can remain open for 15
years on autopilot, as someone must be paying the ARIN bill.
Even under the original policies, review of use of IPv4 space only comes
up in the context of requesting more space from ARIN. In light of the
marketability o
I support this policy.
Giving ISP's/LIR's the ability to add reassignment contacts without
verification from the contacts being added I think was always wrong.
Often, the email added was NOT someone who actually processed abuse
issues, but often was instead someone from purchasing or marketing
John,
I cannot comment for everyone in the community other than to say
that any network administrator who sees no value in accurate POCs
is certifiably insane.
I submit the following for your enjoyment:
There once was an admin named Hein
Who thought lying on his POC was just fine
then along ca
On 30 Nov 2017, at 1:08 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt
mailto:t...@ipinc.net>> wrote:
And I will point out that the entire point of validating POCs is to discover
things like /16's that haven't been used for 15 years.
It would seem to me that ARIN staff vacillates between loving and hating
section 3.6
19 matches
Mail list logo
