Re: [arin-ppml] Revised: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-8: Amend the Definition of Community Network

My point of view a) I am not sure why educational institutions are not able to pay the fees for other categories of usage, or why they need an exception. ARIN staff would need to decide if the application satisfies this: “a volunteer group, not-for-profit, non-profit, or charitable

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 - updated 2017-07-21

On this thread we've gone from near-real-time update of bus GPS co-ordinates to suggesting allocating over 64 subnets per student for most of our school districts was a bad idea and we should have allocated more(!) Some stats for SY2017 # districts: 317; # districts <=100 students: 46 ;

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6 - updated 2017-07-21

I believe we should SWIP for /48. I believe we may SWIP for /56 or longer if the Service provider deems it useful. As an example we assign /48's to school districts, colleges, and universities in the State of Washington. I want each of them to have their own SWIP records so any issues with

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

I have too many roles and job-titles, so below is my opinion only (as I'm at lunch right now) My 2c. As a residential customer with IPv6: There are many valid reasons not to expose individual residential customer addresses. For example someone being stalked or harassed by an ex. If their

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

Specifically: DMCA violation notices go to the SWIPed contacts instead of the original holder. /RjL From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of Martin Hannigan Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 7:58 PM To: Seth Mattinen ; arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re:

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-8: Removal of Indirect POC Validation Requirement

> -Original Message- > From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of Andrew Dul > Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 6:40 PM > > I'd like to throw out a few open ended questions that perhaps will guide the > AC as it considers this draft: > > 1. Do you think reassignment

Re: [arin-ppml] Revisit RPKI TAL Relying Party Agreement?

From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of William Herrin > Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 9:29 AM ... > Exactly. You refuse to provide new services related to legacy resource > holdings, including RPKI. While not unreasonable in the context of ARIN > operations, this is

Re: [arin-ppml] 2016-9 Streamline Merger & Acquisition Transfers - Text modifications

: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 4:13 PM To: Richard J. Letts <rjle...@uw.edu> Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2016-9 Streamline Merger & Acquisition Transfers - Text modifications Wouldn't the existing language ("The recipient must provide independently veri

Re: [arin-ppml] 2016-9 Streamline Merger & Acquisition Transfers - Text modifications

This assumes that only corporate entities merge, acquire, or re-organize. How would state agencies or an inter-institution research group produce the required documentation to facilitate the movement of resources given the lack of independently verifiable information? Similarly, a function

Re: [arin-ppml] LAST CALL for Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-5: Post-IPv4-Free-Pool-Depletion Transfer Policy

Following Owen's opposition to this I decided to have a look. This is probably not relevant to many of my users so I'd not looked in detail at this. I'm going to note that the NRPM is improperly called the Number Policy Resource Manual on the first line of the problem statement, which makes me

Re: [arin-ppml] Community Networks (Was Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM)

6.5.9.1 says more than was quoted. The bit that was missing is "For community networks located in rural regions (population less than 2,500) or in the Caribbean and North Atlantic Islands Sector, the numbers in these qualification criteria may be relaxed at ARIN's discretion." More than half

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30-Day Utilization Requirement in End-User IPv4 Policy

My preference is to apply the policy change as written (with the minor editorial change substituting "criterion" for "criteria".) Thank you Richard Letts > -Original Message- > From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On > Behalf Of David Farmer > Sent:

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30-Day Utilization Requirement in End-User IPv4 Policy

Why are we adding more rules for IPv4 space? a) It is almost impossible to get space in a reasonable timescale without paying (more than just the ARIN fees) for it b) If you have to pay for the space anyway you are not going to buy something that you can't use (unless you are

Re: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - December 2015

As an alternative to ARIN taking on the burden of allowing/managing SWIP for end-user registrants how about allowing end-user registrants to register/run a rwhois server? That way if a large organization (like, say Apple or Microsoft) wants to publish data for their networks they can take on

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks

Where did the 9% come from? Should that not be 24%? Either way, if we were talking about houses then many of us realize that if the number of bidders on property who had the cash (but not the need) were 10 or 25% larger, then you might expect the value of the property to be higher. The same is

Re: [arin-ppml] 11 Proposals Under Consideration

Dave Farmer asked for opinions on the other proposals. -9 has been flogged close to death, here are my opinions on five of the others. > -Original Message- > From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On > Behalf Of David Farmer > Sent: 25 September 2015 2:14 PM

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks

b) There is no definitive outcome from the policy change, which makes me feel that it's not worth changing -- the problem statement argument is weak at best. It is potentially enabling organizations with more money than need gain more resources, potentially at the expense of non-profit and

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2

If that is the case, then ARIN/We should update inter-RIR policies to only allow transfers to registries that have substantially similar transfer policies. This does not require complete blobal co-ordination, but it will establish areas where co-operating RIRs get access to free markets and

Re: [arin-ppml] 2015-2

I am against 2015-2; either I’m not understanding why waiting to do this is a problem or it’s shuffling deckchairs for a minority of companies. Richard Letts ___ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy

Re: [arin-ppml] IPv6 End-User Initial Assignment Policy (or: Please don't me make do ULA + NAT66)

I have read the scenarios people have presented and I have not understood what the problem statement is. Has anyone asked and failed to get IPv6 resources? It looks to me like the problem statements are for really small businesses and caused by poor network design, or the assumption that having

Re: [arin-ppml] Multi-homing justification removed?

I believe the intent was there. orgs that have a justifiable/provable need for a /24 were been restricted by their current/lone provider being unwilling to give them enough address space. Not everyone has the ability to change providers, and if you can't change providers then you certainly

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-18: Simplifying Minimum Allocations and Assignments

What Seth said; oppose 2014-18 /RjL On Wed, 3 Sep 2014, Seth Mattinen wrote: On 7/23/14, 7:58, ARIN wrote: On 17 July 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted ARIN-prop-210 Simplifying Minimum Allocations and Assignments as a Draft Policy. Draft Policy ARIN-2014-18 is

Re: [arin-ppml] Policy discussion - Method of calculating utilization

-Original Message- From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Lyon Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 7:49 AM Friends, Colleagues, A couple of years ago I brought up an issue I had run into where the utilization requirement for new

Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Reduce all Minimum Allocation/Assignment units to /24

Support. 4.9/4.9.1 could be deleted; ARIN would then need no special handling for that part of the region. Richard Letts Network Operations Center Manager UW Information Technology Mail: Box 354840 Street: 4545 15th Ave NE, Seattle, WA, 98105 206.685.1699 | mobile 206.790.5837

Re: [arin-ppml] Term Limit Proposal

I've seen that a new member has joined the ARIN AC each year. I have not heard concrete evidence that this proposal improves the policy making process I do not think this is a good idea. Richard Letts ___ PPML You are receiving this message because

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-9: Resolve Conflict Between RSA and 8.2 Utilization Requirements

-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,