Total of 29 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Jun 7 00:53:02 EDT 2019
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
13.79% |4 | 18.16% | 145070 | arin-ppml@arin.net
10.34% |3 | 11.82% |94426 |
On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 5:21 PM John Curran wrote:
> To that end, at this time it would be good to know from everyone:
>
> 1. Are you in favor of ARIN making the policy change specified in the
> revised "Advisory Council Recommendation Regarding NRPM 4.1.8. Unmet
> Requests” ?
Support as
What an absurd idea !
That's not ideal propose and although ARIN can and should not ignor
transfer market and it is the RIR function to handle the waiting list and
have it in its full control.
It is one of its main proposes to handle this waiting list and I personaly
support this fully.
Regards
I agree with William. It's definitely not logical to hand out free addresses.
Robert Clarke
> On Jun 6, 2019, at 6:21 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>
> Support, though frankly I'd prefer it if ARIN simply abolished the wait list
> and put the addresses on the transfer market.
>
>
Support, though frankly I'd prefer it if ARIN simply abolished the wait
list and put the addresses on the transfer market.
Philosophically speaking, how could you possibly *need* addresses the way
we think of need if you can afford to wait months and months for them to
become available on the
I support this policy revision as written and feel it should move forward
while further discussion takes place for hashing out more details.
—
Brian Jones, CSP, CSM, CSPO
NIS Virginia Tech
bjo...@vt.edu
On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 5:13 PM Nick Bogle wrote:
> I support these changes as written.
>
>
I support these changes as written.
On Thu, Jun 6, 2019, 10:21 AM John Curran wrote:
> Folks -
>
> We’ve had excellent discussion of various options for the revised
> “Advisory Council Recommendation Regarding NRPM 4.1.8. Unmet Requests"
> proposed policy change – some of which is likely to
I also support this policy change as written and encourage future policy
proposals to refine the details.
Steve
On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 10:26 AM Leif Sawyer wrote:
> +1 support the policy change as currently written
>
>
>
>
>
> Also, as a general reminder, we don’t have to get this
I support the AC's recommendation as written.
While this policy will limit the organizations that are eligible to
receive a block, I believe it strikes the right balance. The smaller
block size (/22) is generally in line with the final block size
allocations of the other RIRs.
Furthermore,
On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 05:20:40PM +, John Curran wrote:
> Folks -
>
> We???ve had excellent discussion of various options for the revised
> ???Advisory Council Recommendation Regarding NRPM 4.1.8. Unmet
> Requests" proposed policy change ??? some of which is likely to
> have to further
Support.
On 6/6/2019 1:20 PM, John Curran wrote:
Folks -
We’ve had excellent discussion of various options for the revised
“Advisory Council Recommendation Regarding NRPM 4.1.8. Unmet Requests"
proposed policy change – some of which is likely to have to further
informed folks initial views
I would add that the current wait list is the best view we have of what the
marketplace needs, so if a minimum is to be established it should take into
account the actual requests for resources that are in the queue. Also 2 year
hold is the compromise. My two cents.
Steven Ryerse
President
That would be correct.
What to do with the people already on the current list need to be addressed
clearly.
Thanks,
Tom Pruitt
Network Engineer
Stratus Networks
From: John Curran
Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2019 2:34 PM
To: Tom Pruitt
Cc: ARIN-PPML List
Subject: Re: Looking for final show of
Tom -
To be clear, if the only choices are status quo (no wait list issuance for
foreseeable future) or resume under the AC proposed change, you are
recommending status quo - correct?
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers
On 6 Jun 2019, at 3:01 PM, Tom
+1 for toms comments
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 6, 2019, at 3:03 PM, Tom Pruitt
mailto:tpru...@stratusnet.com>> wrote:
No -- I can not support the new policy if applied to the current waiting list.
-- I don’t support applying the new restriction (only Orgs holding a /20 or
less can get on
No -- I can not support the new policy if applied to the current waiting list.
-- I don’t support applying the new restriction (only Orgs holding a /20 or
less can get on the waiting list) to Orgs that were on the list prior to the
suspension.
--I also would rather see those same Orgs get
Michael,
Given the timing of the next ARIN Advisory Council and Board Meeting(s) and the
next scheduled allocation of resources by staff — it is the only option if the
community does not want to delay resumption of the waiting list. If the
community feels that we need to go back to the drawing
> 1. Are you in favor of ARIN making the policy change specified in the
> revised "Advisory Council Recommendation Regarding NRPM 4.1.8. Unmet
> Requests" ?
Yes.___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN
If the only choice is to not issue or issue /22, I suppose resuming.
Sent from my iPhone
On 6 Jun 2019, at 13:30, John Curran wrote:
Michael -
To be clear, if the only choices are status quo (no wait list issuance for
foreseeable future) or resume under the AC proposed change, you are
No - oppose. But I would support it if the 60 month waiting period was reduced
to 12 or 24 months. 60 months means companies who no longer need the resources
will just sit on them till they can sell them. Not an efficient way to get
them into the hands of those who need them.
And also that
+1, I also support ARIN adopting the changes recommended by the AC.
Having followed discussion on the mailing list and in person (at ARIN 43) I was
able to see first-hand the good faith discussions and rationale which led to
the CIDR size limitation and timing for wait list issuance. Better to
On 6/6/19 10:20 AM, John Curran wrote:
1. Are you in favor of ARIN making the policy change specified in the
revised "Advisory Council Recommendation Regarding NRPM 4.1.8. Unmet
Requests” ?
Yes, I support this policy.
~Seth
___
ARIN-PPML
You
+1 support from here as well
On Thu, Jun 6, 2019, 17:29 Scott Leibrand wrote:
> +1 support for the draft policy as written, and to Leif's other points.
>
> -Scott
>
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 10:26 AM Leif Sawyer wrote:
>
>> +1 support the policy change as currently written
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
Michael -
To be clear, if the only choices are status quo (no wait list issuance for
foreseeable future) or resume under the AC proposed change, you are
recommending status quo - correct?
/John
p.s. The reason we ask in this particular manner is because we can’t
accurately gauge support or
Yes. I favor the AC’s revised recommendation. The changes address certain staff
concerns we hadn’t previously considered while maintaining a structure which I
believe is widely supported within the community.
Even if this isn’t the perfect solution, I believe it is a good way forward and
+1 support the policy change as currently written
Also, as a general reminder, we don't have to get this *perfect* out of the
gates, and we -the community- can suggest follow-up policy changes
if things start looking strange. But if we wait to try to find a perfect
balance between all
No. I do not support the policy as written. I believe the request size
should be increased to a /21.
Furthermore either in this policy or a seperate one should require any IP
issuances coming from the waitlist to be returned to ARIN if they are no
longer used. We should not allow IPs acquired
Folks -
We’ve had excellent discussion of various options for the revised “Advisory
Council Recommendation Regarding NRPM 4.1.8. Unmet Requests" proposed policy
change – some of which is likely to have to further informed folks initial
views on the matter (as well as on future policy
28 matches
Mail list logo
