https://benjojo.co.uk/u/benjojo/h/r1zj333N4L6cF7P1xv
On Thu,04 Jan 2024 16:55:05 -0500 m...@iptrading.com wrote I
thought this situation would be of interest to the Arin
community.Regards,Mike Forwarded Message From :
hph+announce@ripe.netTo :
I thought this situation would be of interest to the Arin community.
Regards,
Mike Forwarded Message From : hph+announce@ripe.netTo :
ncc-announce@ripe.netDate : Thu,04 Jan 2024 15:47:13 -0500Subject :
[ncc-announce] Security Breach: Please Enable Two-Factor
opposition and minimal support), it’s
perfectly reasonable
for the AC to make the determination to abandon.
Owen
> On Oct 27, 2023, at 13:30, Mike Burns wrote:
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> Thanks for introduction the topic of list participation by AC members and
> candidates.
> The
Hi Bill,
Thanks for introduction the topic of list participation by AC members and
candidates.
The AC minutes obviously don't give much detail about any substantive
discussions between AC members.
My story:
Considering the interest on the list, I was nonplussed when my recent proposal
to
...@herrin.us wrote On Thu, Oct
26, 2023 at 6:58 AM Mike Burns wrote:
> And I agree with Fernando that affiliations or connections to
> IP brokers would be a point in their favor considering they
> are the people distributing IPv4 addresses these days.
Hi Mike,
Before considerin
Hi Bill,
I feel your pain and I think it’s sad that there is not more participation from
these candidates.
And I agree with Fernando that affiliations or connections to IP brokers would
be a point in their favor considering they are the people distributing IPv4
addresses these days.
Makes
+1,+1
Regards,
Mike
From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of Delong.com via
ARIN-PPML
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 4:39 PM
To: ARIN
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2023-5: Clean-up of NRPM Sections
4.3.4, 4.4, 4.10 and 6.10.1
IMHO, this is an
In my experience many small resource holders have their upstreams announce
their blocks so they don't need their own BGP connection.
For example enterprises that like the freedom to shop around for ISPs without
renumbering.
I am opposed to this policy as the existing waiting-list guard-rails
Hi Douglas
Interesting post, thanks.
I am curious as to what precedent will be set. What do you think, and how could
this community be affected?
Regards,
Mike
On Wed, 07 Jun 2023 09:04:43 -0400 arin-ppml@arin.net wrote
div.zm_-2118264287618186377_parse_-3210343989793755353
,
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers
On Jun 4, 2023, at 12:36 PM, Mike Burns mailto:m...@iptrading.com> > wrote:
One more thing John….
You keep referring to his as the “Trusted” Facilitator program, not Qualified.
Why does ARI
One more thing John….
You keep referring to his as the “Trusted” Facilitator program, not Qualified.
Why does ARIN feel to the need to create a trusted list, doesn’t that open ARIN
to even more liability exposure?
Regards,
Mike
From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of John Curran
Sent: Sunday,
Thanks John.
Why are foreign facilitators banned?
I am concerned about a tit-for-tat response.
This is a global market supported by inter-regional policies.
If it’s just to make facilitators easier to sue, I think things are getting
paranoid/ridiculous.
Regards,
Mike
From:
“All that said, I couldn’t find any justification for the increase from $1,000
to $10,000. If there is justification or other details regarding the increase,
I’d appreciate a pointer to them.”
Hi David,
Reading the new contract it’s clear that ARIN’s intention here is to avoid any
I doubt you’d have many on the list, there are diminishing returns….
Thanks for the shout-out on our name though.
And for sharing your thoughts.
Regards,
Mike
From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of Michael B. Williams
via ARIN-PPML
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2023 7:52 PM
To: Tom Fantacone
Cc:
“I do not see a reason to add policy around leasing those IP addresses at this
time.”
+1 to what Dustin wrote.
How would the leasing of waitlist space be detected? How would the prohibition
be enforced? How much staff time would be involved?
It’s quite simple to deliver leased addresses
Hi John,
I kind of like Bill's definition, but considering your feedback I offer a
modified version.
The Internet requires strings of numbers and letters to identify network
elements and allow for communication between them. These strings must be
unique. The Regional Internet Registries,
Yes, but think about the streamlining of section 4
All returned addresses go back the the waiting list.
The waiting list gives one /24 to each member in need who has no resources.
I could rewrite that section in 5 lines. ;-)
On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 18:53:30 -0500 Martin Hannigan
Hi David,
To prevent a recurrence of the RIPE new-entrants-pool fiasco, I think a
demonstration of need will suffice to prevent gaming.
And changing from a /22 to a /24 reduces the incentive to game by 75%.
But it would be interesting to hear other ideas.
Regards,
Mike
On Mon,
"A change in the waiting-list rules that would be certainly be
welcome is restrict it only to newcomers that have no IPv4 space
at all."
I would support this change as well.
Why not a waiting-list that provides a max /24 to any member with demonstrated
need who has not received
"I don't support any changes to the transfer provisions of the waiting list.
The current transfer provisions seem reasonable to me.
However, if I were going to support any changes to the waiting list, I would
support reducing the request size from /22 to /24."
+1
Regards,
Mike
atarin-ppml-owner@arin.netWhen replying, please
edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML
digest..."Today's Topics: 1. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2022-9: Leasing Not
Intended (M
Of Fernando Frediani
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2022 12:40 PM
To: 'arin-ppml'
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2022-9: Leasing Not Intended
Hi
Em 12/09/2022 13:09, Mike Burns escreveu:
Hi Fernando,
Why not go back and fix the proposal language mis-describing the situation at
other
to whoever has real need or return them back to ARIN so
them can be directly assigned by ARIN to any member who really needs them and
have no intermediaries in the middle pretending to be a RIR and bringing real
security issues to the whole Internet.
Fernando
On 10/09/2022 14:01, Mike Burns wrote
n the RIPE region,
I kindly suggest that proposers contact first our Policy Officer
(p...@ripe.net) for input.
Kind regards,
Marco Schmidt
Manager Registration Services & Policy Development
RIPE NCC
On 11/09/2022 02:47, Jon Lewis wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Se
, with or without a cost associated that is something
that must not be since they no longer have a justification to keep
that IP space and instead should either transfer it to those who
really justify or return to ARIN.
Fernando
On 24/08/2022 11:04, Mike Burns wrote:
Opposed, I
Opposed, I think the proposal contains errors that should be fixed before the
discussion proceeds.
For example this statement :
“In other RIRs, the leasing of addresses is not authorized either and since it
is not explicit in their policy manuals either, this proposal will be presented
as
Just a point of clarification.
ARIN is not the only RIR with legacy blocks.Check ARIN ERX Transfers.Every RIR
has them, and has similar policies regarding them.There are some significant
differences related to transfers of legacy space.
Regards,Mike
--- Original Message ---
>From
Hi Ron,
I have wondered myself. I have heard of a team inside ARIN working to
identify such blocks, if my memory serves.
I have seen administratively and voluntarily dissolved corporations come
back to life, so ARIN must consider this.
The duration of dormancy allowed varies from jurisdiction
Hi Matthew,
Thank you for reminding us that this relates only to transfers of expensive IP
addresses.
So protections against fraud which were vital to protect the free pool can be
relaxed a bit in the context of buying addresses.
I don’t think this is a very important issue, but we
Hi Jay,
The Spamhauses of the world don't allow infinite lather rinse repeat cycles.
Regards,
Mike On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 19:13:49 -0400 j...@impulse.net wrote On
3/21/22 16:03, Mike Burns wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> We once saw an ipv4 block included among hardware as part o
Scott
Leibrand wrote:On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 12:39 PM Mike
Burns wrote:Hi Scott, I am sorry, I actually penned a long
reply to your initial post but never sent it.The limit on initial block size
is the same as if you came to ARIN seeking a block not for lease, but for your
circuit-connected
) To: Mike Burns Cc: ARIN-PPML List
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft
Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining
Utilization for Future Allocations On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 12:39 PM Mike Burns
wrote:Hi Scott, I am sorry, I actually penned
,
Mike
PS You ignored my request for evidence of speculation at RIPE where absolutely
no needs demonstration has been required for many years.
From: Scott Leibrand
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2022 3:25 PM
To: Mike Burns
Cc: Owen DeLong ; Andrew Dul ;
arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject
-
From: sc...@solarnetone.org
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2022 11:23 AM
To: Mike Burns
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] FW: Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6:
Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future
Allocations
Mike,
>
> T
to avail themselves of 4.10, but whether or not this
policy passes, leasing will not be a justification for 4.10 addresses.
Regards,
Mike
-Original Message-
From: sc...@solarnetone.org
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2022 11:23 AM
To: Mike Burns
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml
Hi Holden,
No, the wait-list can’t be tapped through the use of this policy, only
circuit-connected customers count towards justification for wait-list blocks.
The primary value of the leasing company is that they are allowing the
effective financing of Ipv4 address space through the
Hi Owen, Andrew, and Scott,
Transfer approval of a larger-than-minimum block size requires detailed
documentation of the use of at least 50% of the block in 24 months, and that
detailed documentation must be officer-attested. I’m sure we all agree that
nobody can approach ARIN for a large
I weep for my once-pristine Section 8, now increasingly sullied by walls of
text, mostly unnecessary.
A complete waste of time as the value of these resources compels more efficient
use than this tired artifact language ever did…
So it seems that ARIN will look individually at MDNs, allow
Hi Scott,
Thank you, I wrote a response to your initial post that centered on the market
and the current leasing returns, which I would put at roughly a 12% rental
return on investment, or 100 months of payments equals one address purchase.
I would like to point out that prices in the
or effectively finance them through
leasing?
Regards,
Mike
From: Brian Jones
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2022 1:35 PM
To: Mike Burns
Cc: ARIN-PPML
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6:
Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization
, they will still be
required to submit evidence of that to ARIN.
Regards,
Mike
-Original Message-
From: William Herrin
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2022 12:28 PM
To: Mike Burns
Cc: PPML
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6:
Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses
they would add demand to the transfer market?
I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but that is something worthy of
discussion I guess.
Regards,
Mike
From: Brian Jones
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2022 11:58 AM
To: Mike Burns ; ARIN-PPML
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Revised
Hi Joe,
Setting up a thin VPN in not heavy lifting.
This policy continues to only allow usage on operational networks to
function as justification for purchase.
Regards,
Mike
-Original Message-
From: Joe Provo
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2022 7:12 PM
To: Mike Burns
Cc: William Herrin
of the phrase to this
policy proposal.
Are you against all renting of IPv4 addresses, and if so, why?
Or are you against only non-incumbent owners renting space?
Regards,
Mike
-Original Message-
From: William Herrin
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2022 6:44 PM
To: Mike Burns
Cc: PPML
Subject: Re
Hi Bill,
Thanks for your reasoning.
For point A I would say the cart has left the barn and these once public
resources are now effectively private resources, with different rules logically
applying.
Is rent always and everywhere a bad thing? We can't ignore the fact that these
resources
13:16:32 -0500 Mike Burns wrote
Hi Fernando,
I would say one-quarter or one-half would be okay and I would support it then.
If I have a /14 and need a /20, I should be able to sell the /14 as two /15s or
four /16s.
Usually this situation is a /16 seller who needs less than a /22
in a good direction.
Regarding the merit of the proposal what would the acceptable
size to to allow to fractionate that
block, if any ?
Regards
Fernando
On 08/02/2022 14:29, Mike Burns wrote:
Hi Rob,
I am opposed to the policy as written because it requires the larger block t
Hi Rob,
I am opposed to the policy as written because it requires the larger block to
be sold in one piece.
This isn't always possible or desirable for a seller. What if they have a /14
or larger?
I prefer allowing the workaround with the new Org for the small block with a
restriction on the
https://www.wsj.com/articles/executive-pleads-guilty-in-internet-address-fra
ud-case-11637101781
In this case of fraud to acquire resources the perpetrator pled guilty to
all charges.
Regards,
Mike Burns
___
ARIN-PPML
You
I'm not sure I even get the point why it was written and sent, as there was no
requirement for explanation.
Why would even one, much less two or three people think it was a good idea?
On Mon, 08 Nov 2021 17:34:25 -0500 Martin Hannigan
wrote
On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 17:25
an explanation to candidates, I do not believe this letter would meet
that requirement. If you have any ideas on wording to create a more
effectiverequirement that clarifies that fact, I would love to know what you
might propose.OwenOn Nov 4, 2021, at 10:44 AM, Mike Burns
wrote:Hi Martin, Oh I
this is the kind of obfuscatory behavior
we're going to get out of requiring explanations under the current process,
then that process needs to be changed more radically than I thought.-ScottOn
Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 9:37 AM Mike Burns wrote:Hello list,I
received the explanation for my exclusion from
Hello list,
I received the explanation for my exclusion from this year's AC slate.
For those who believe this explanation provides any transparency, I post it in
its totality below to disabuse them of that notion.
Required explanations don't move the needle at all in attempting to improve
From: John Curran
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2021 9:54 AM
To: Mike Burns
Cc: john ; arin-ppml
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Board Election Petition underway
Mike -
For clarity, ARIN’s Election Processes are here -
https://www.arin.net/participate/oversight/elections/processes
"On the other hand, all rejected
nominees should be entitled to know the reasons privately, and simply asking
for
them does not imply such waiver."
Hi John,
I was rejected, never got a reason, whom do I simply ask?
(Just letting everybody know that it doesn't work that way currently.)
It's not particularly important to consider this past election, but rather
to consider the vulnerabilities exposed by it.
We have always needed the NomCom for its candidate-finding ability, not so
much for its candidate-filtering ability.
Isn't candidate-filtering what elections are for?
Why do
Hi Scott,
I think there are much more dramatic changes necessary.
Look at the way things are done in RIPE, it is quite different.
The NomCom can be advisory, it doesn't have to be exclusionary.
Having 10 candidates for 7 openings is ridiculous and only acceptable if there
is a dearth of
-M<
On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 2:45 PM John Curran mailto:jcur...@arin.net> > wrote:
On 19 Oct 2021, at 2:07 PM, Mike Burns mailto:m...@iptrading.com> > wrote:
I would also like to move forward.
How are such changes made, do we just hope the Board is floating above,
liste
The Board and NomCom have to know that the nominating process lends itself to
board capture.
It provides a safe and simple mechanism for that, requiring only a few people
to execute.
That kind of vulnerability is not consistent with a mature governance regime.
Thank you Cathy, for sharing.
: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 4:44 PM
To: arin-ppml@arin.net
Cc: Mike Burns
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN Announces the Final Slate of Candidates for
the 2021 ARIN Elections
Mike -
Speaking only as myself, and not as a member of the AC or the NomCom:
I hear your frustrations for transparency
.
Rather than shunt it to the ACSP maybe the Board can come up with a statement,
at least acknowledging this particular problem as an issue of specific concern,
maybe even solicit public input?
From: Martin Hannigan
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 3:44 PM
To: John Curran
Cc: Mike Burns
. Maybe waiting for another review cycle is too
long.
Regards,
Mike
From: Paul Andersen - ARIN
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 2:48 PM
To: John Curran
Cc: Mike Burns
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN Announces the Final Slate of Candidates for
the 2021 ARIN Elections
The Board
Hi John,
Is it possible to mirror the discussion on both lists, arin-ppml and
arin-consult?
Since arin-discuss is gone and I am guessing arin-consult has fewer
participants.
Regards,
Mike
From: John Curran
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 2:45 PM
To: Mike Burns
Cc: Michael B
1:43 PM
To: Mike Burns
Cc: Bill Woodcock ; Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN Announces the Final Slate of Candidates for the
2021 ARIN Elections
Indeed. Now how do we get transparency going forward?
_
Michael B. Williams
Glexia - An IT Company
Book
+1
These results underline the need for changes in nominating procedures.
Regards,
Mike Burns
-Original Message-
From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of Bill Woodcock
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 1:07 PM
To: Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN Announces the Final Slate
<https://www.facebook.com/EclipseNetworks/>
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/eclipse-networks-inc/>
<https://twitter.com/NetworksEclipse>
<https://www.instagram.com/eclipsenetworks/>
<https://www.eclipse-networks.com/>
From: ARIN-PPML mailto
I was rejected for an Advisory Council candidacy even though I was a candidate
in the past and am a policy author in multiple registries.
Another broker was likewise rejected.
There are 7 AC openings, only 10 candidates, but I was rejected.
I know another broker who was, like me, solicited to
Sorry, not for the list, can I retract that?
My apologies.
Regards,
Mike
On Thu, 23 Sep 2021 21:05:45 -0400 Mike Burns wrote
Hi Owen,
Actually I don't approach address owners in any way.
I rely on incoming business.
I was always afraid of being accused of mining Whois
23, 2021, at 16:25 , William Herrin <mailto:b...@herrin.us> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 4:15 PM Mike Burns <mailto:m...@iptrading.com> wrote:
>> I add value by transferring cash to somebody else in the hope I can lease
>> the purchased IPv4 out for a pro
Sep 2021 20:38:51 -0400 William Herrin wrote
Give it up Mike. You want to sublet a rent controlled apartment at
market rate. That's not cool.
-Bill
On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 4:40 PM Mike Burns <mailto:m...@iptrading.com> wrote:
>
> Hello list,
>
> It might help
Hello list,
It might help everybody to know that at current rates, it could take 100 months
of lease revenue to purchase an address.
The risk is not exactly zero when buying to lease out.
Regards,
Mike
On Thu, 23 Sep 2021 19:27:53 -0400 Mike Burns wrote
Hi Bill
,
Mike
On Thu, 23 Sep 2021 19:25:37 -0400 William Herrin wrote
On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 4:15 PM Mike Burns <mailto:m...@iptrading.com> wrote:
> I add value by transferring cash to somebody else in the hope I can lease the
> purchased IPv4 out for a profit
Hi Bill,
You are completely neglecting risk in your assumption that no value is added.
I add value by transferring cash to somebody else in the hope I can lease the
purchased IPv4 out for a profit before China and the DoD dump addresses on the
market.
It's basic economics. Does an apartment
Hi Bill and Joe,
This is why my proposal doesn't change the relationship between ARIN and LIRs,
who have the same responsibility of ensuring need that LIRs always have.
Just absent the circuit itself, which doesn't change the justification data.
Regards,
Mike
On Thu, 23 Sep
On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 20:17:58 -0400 William Herrin wrote
On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 11:35 AM Mike Burns <mailto:m...@iptrading.com> wrote:
> What you wrote below is actually the current policy, why clutter things?
>
> " LIR-assigned number resources employed
as a proposed
change to the ARIN RSA, but as a potential policy proposal. I do see how the
current text could make that easy to misinterpret, and I’m happy to update the
text to clarify as such.
Thanks,
-C
On Sep 22, 2021, at 2:08 PM, Mike Burns <mailto:m...@iptrading.com>
tends to byzantine connections.
Regards,
Mike
From: Chris Woodfield
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 4:56 PM
To: Mike Burns
Cc: PPML
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Remove Circuit Requirement
I disagree. There are a number of other parts of the NRPM
e you know a pencil-thin VPN would meet the test, but there are many
more moles to whack.
Regards,
Mike
From: Chris Woodfield
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 4:25 PM
To: Mike Burns ; PPML
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Remove Circuit Requirement
, but those
old-timers sitting on prior allocations don't have the skills to do it well. So
they get taken, often by spammers.
Regards,
Mike
-Original Message-
From: William Herrin
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 4:22 PM
To: Mike Burns
Cc: PPML
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy
the cloud provider offers payment if I share my pool with other users
of that cloud network?
Regards,
Mike
From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of Mike Burns
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 11:50 AM
To: 'Chris Woodfield' ; 'PPML'
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Remo
From: Chris Woodfield
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 12:18 PM
To: PPML
Cc: Owen DeLong ; Mike Burns
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Remove Circuit Requirement
I believe that IP resources are a public good, and as such, must be managed in
a way
"No signatory to any ARIN RSA is permitted to issue addresses to customers who,
in ARIN’s belief and discretion, are not contracting for a bona fide
connectivity service that makes use of the allocated addresses.”
Does that sound unreasonable?
-C
Hi Chris,
Have you considered that every
Hi Bill,
What you wrote below is actually the current policy, why clutter things?
" LIR-assigned number resources employed by an end user with a routing
policy in which the LIR is not the primary network service provider handling
the majority of the end user's associated network traffic do not
Hi Bill,
You seem to acknowledge there are lessees out there who have a need for
addresses.
However, you object to a "high-price mini-ARIN".
Every LIR is a mini-ARIN by nature, isn't it?
So what you are really objecting to is the high-price, and I believe the nub of
it is the rent money.
The
for the clarity of your expression.
Regards,
Mike
On Sep 22, 2021, at 8:50 AM, Mike Burns mailto:m...@iptrading.com> > wrote:
Hi Chris,
I am still unclear. So the “risk” you refer to is the inability to purchase new
blocks using leases as justification?
I’m not en
against miscreants if they were
allowed to enter that market.
Regards,
Mike
From: Chris Woodfield
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 11:33 AM
To: PPML
Cc: Owen DeLong ; Mike Burns
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Remove Circuit Requirement
I’m speaking
owners to accurately register assignments that does not exist in
the absence of this policy.
Regards,
Mike
From: Isaiah Olson
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 10:56 AM
To: Mike Burns
Cc: 'ARIN-PPML List'
Subject: Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Remove Circuit Requirement
I
the carrot approach, but you can try the stick to see if that would
encourage more accurate assignments.
Regards,
Mike
From: Isaiah Olson
Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2021 8:00 PM
To: Mike Burns
Cc: 'ARIN-PPML List'
Subject: Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Remove Circuit R
Hi Albert,
Those idyllic days are gone with the free pool.
Trying to hearken back to them is ignoring current reality.
That genie won't go back in the bottle.
Also, strangely, I am leasing out IPv6 as well as IPv4.
Not sure why, the company I am leasing to has a much larger IPv6 block.
I
There is alot of mystery and bad faith contrary to what the internet community
expected from address management for best interest of everyone.
Noah
There is no mystery and there is no bad faith, but this distribution mechanism
was not anticipated by those who designed the free-pool
Hi Chris,
Can you be more specific on which inherent risk this policy would remove?
Somebody +1’d this, but I don’t understand what you mean.
I don’t even know which party’s risk is being commented on.
Regards,
Mike
From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of Chris Woodfield
Sent: Tuesday,
rom me on that point and that there are real
economic arguments in favor of such a standalone proposal.
Regardless, I hope this policy will be amended to specify that
leased addresses cannot be considered as justified need for
waiting list requests.
- Isaiah
On 9/21/2021 7:43 PM, Mike Bur
from this,
I would recommend that you speak up in order to keep this proposal alive. “
I think that is exactly the definition of encouraging discussion. You’re free
to disagree with my assessment, but you and I are not the scorekeepers here.
-C
> On Sep 21, 2021, at 5:03 PM, Mike Burns &
is the better way to go, have at it.
Regards,
Mike
- Isaiah
On 9/21/2021 6:17 PM, Mike Burns wrote:
Hi Isaiah,
Thanks, replies inline.
On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 18:56:05 -0400 Isaiah Olson
mailto:isa...@olson-network.com wrote
Hi Mike,
Thanks for your reply. I
* Technically the author doesn’t withdraw a proposal, as it’s in the AC’s hands
once published. But in general, I would expect the AC to honor a proposal
author’s request to abandon it.
On Sep 21, 2021, at 3:48 PM, Mike Burns <mailto:m...@iptrading.com> wrote:
Hi Chris,
Not su
is artificially being held by those who justified the need for it,
yet pay less in membership fees but would happily make a killing in hoarded
IPv4 space.
Is this what this policy is all about?
Noah
On Wed, 22 Sep 2021, 02:23 Mike Burns, <mailto:m...@iptrading.com> wrote:
H
it as advantageous to them.
Regards,
Mike
On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 19:16:48 -0400 Noah wrote
On Wed, 22 Sep 2021, 01:58 Mike Burns, <mailto:m...@iptrading.com> wrote:
Hi Noah,
"I dont see why a small startup WISP would prefer brokers or IPv4 leasers
I
don't think that you overcame my assertion this time.
Because currently there is no "justification benefit" for accurate
registration, but this policy would create one.
Regards,
Mike
- Isaiah
On 9/21/2021 4:29 PM, Mike Burns wrote:
>
> Hi Isaiah,
24 or more at no cost beyond the IPT service.
I dont see why a small startup WISP would prefer brokers or IPv4 leasers to an
LIR.!
Noah
On Wed, 22 Sep 2021, 00:47 Mike Burns, <mailto:m...@iptrading.com> wrote:
Hi Noah,
Thanks for your thoughts, my replies are inline.
“Transfe
Hi Fernando,
I don't get the point in your posting below, can you be more concise so that I
can address it?
Regards,
Mike
On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 18:47:00 -0400 Fernando Frediani
wrote
Well, it seems that leasing practices are not that popular among
community and
1 - 100 of 329 matches
Mail list logo
