Re: [arin-ppml] A Redefinition of IPv4 Need post ARIN run-out (was: Re:Against 2013-4)

On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:42 PM, Martin Hannigan hanni...@gmail.comwrote: On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:24 PM, cb.list6 cb.li...@gmail.com wrote: On Jun 11, 2013 7:15 PM, Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at wrote: When will we start caring about IPv6 and start ignoring IPv4??? Who cares if

Re: [arin-ppml] A Redefinition of IPv4 Need post ARINrun-out(was:Re:Against2013-4)

networkers will push toward IPv6 instead of clinging to legacy addressing. Regards, Mike *From:* Brian Jones bjo...@vt.edu *Sent:* Thursday, June 13, 2013 9:30 AM *To:* Mike Burns m...@nationwideinc.com *Cc:* Mike Burns m...@iptrading.com ; arin-ppml@arin.net *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml

Re: [arin-ppml] Fraud reporting question

+1 Owen's remarks. There’s another possibility which seems entirely likely to me. Of 146 fraud reports, 2% cover legitimate fraud. Most fraud likely goes unreported. As noted by ARIN staff earlier in this conversation, the vast majority of fraud reports they receive are out of scope… General

Re: [arin-ppml] Thoughts on 2015-7

On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Aug 20, 2015, at 7:17 PM, Brian Jones <bjo...@vt.edu> wrote: > > Mathew, > I think we are in agreement on some level. I don't want valuable resources > to sit idle either. At the

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

I find Bill's proposal an interesting middle ground approach. I do not believe completely eliminating needs-based justification for addresses is the correct thing to do. -- Brian On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Bill Buhler wrote: > Having watched this for the last couple of

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-10: Minimum IPv6 Assignments

I do not think this policy is unsound or unfair, however I do not believe it will have the intended effect. Network Operators should have the ability to subnet their address blocks as they see fit without being penalized when they come back for more addresses. It seems that as long as the

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

ange them independently (although this doesn't seem to be a popular model). >> Insisting on perfection is just hamstringing the entire service region... both the speculators *and* legitimate users. >> -Adam >> >> >> On September 26, 2015 8:47:46 PM CDT, Brian Jones

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30 day utilization requirement in end-user IPv4 policy

+1 Dave's comments. The question remains, how do we get there... -- Brian On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 3:45 PM, David Farmer wrote: > Again, philosophically I agree with the one policy for all mantra, but how > do we get there. I believe the intent of the author is to find bite size

Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1: Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments

I am in favor of this proposal. Relaxing the requirements could foster further IPv6 adoption. Brian Jones bjo...@vt.edu ___ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net

Re: [arin-ppml] Proposal ARIN-2015-8

On Dec 3, 2015 2:35 PM, "Christian Tacit" wrote: > > I am writing on behalf of the ARIN AC to seek additional input from the community regarding how (or if) we should proceed with ARIN-2015-8. > > > > The feedback received at ARIN 36 and in subsequent AC discussions has been

Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-1: Reserved Pool Transfer Policy

I support this proposal as written. __ Brian Jones On 16 June 2016 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) advanced the following Draft Policy to Recommended Draft Policy status: ARIN-2016-1: Reserved Pool Transfer Policy The text of the Recommended Draft Policy is below, and may also be found at: https

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

Looks good to me Dave. I am okay with using criteria or criterion, however using the strict definition it looks as though criterion is the proper singular form. -- Brian On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 5:54 PM, David Farmer wrote: > The following is the proposed update for ARIN-2015-3:

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

oc > > > next week, but an inability to unbox, configure and deploy > > > 16,384 to the various office locations in 30 days. > > > > > > > > > agreed. > > > > > > However, this is the only provision that has a

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

Support. -- Brian On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 7:12 PM, Leif Sawyer wrote: > Good afternoon - > > Based on feedback from Montreal as well as internal discussions, I've > reworked this policy. > AC members and ARIN staff are looking for additional feedback, as well as > your

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN 2-Byte ASN inventory and issuance (was: Re: 2-byte ASN policy)

On Apr 8, 2016 7:26 PM, "David Farmer" wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote: >> >> Thanks, John. >> >> It sounds to me like ARIN is already doing the right thing (saving 2-byte ASNs for people who specifically want them), and

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-1: Reserved Pool Transfer Policy

I support as is. -- Brian ​ E Jones Virginia Tech​ -- Brian On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 7:56 AM, Kevin Blumberg wrote: > Andrew, > > > > I support the proposal as written without the additional transfer language. > > I believe that adding in transfers complicates the proposal

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-4: Transfers for new entrants

Support. On Jul 20, 2016 3:39 PM, "John Springer" <3jo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PPML, > > ARIN-2016-4 was accepted as a Draft Policy in June. > > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2016_4.html > > Expressions of support or opposition to the DP are solicited to assist in > evaluating what

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

-- Brian On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 9:34 PM, Keith W. Hare wrote: > David, > > > > 6.5.2.2 item C requests a plan “with a minimum of 50 assignments within 5 > years” > > > > 6.5.9.1 says “a community network must demonstrate it will immediately > provide sustained service to at least

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

+1 Dave’s comments. I support 2016-9. It should hopefully strengthen the accuracy of the whois data. -- Brian E Jones, CSM, CSPO NI Virginia Tech bjo...@vt.edu > On Jan 24, 2017, at 11:23 PM, David Farmer wrote: > > In the most general sense a state is a corporation. See; >

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN Response to AFRINIC on Policy compatibility

It’s legacy space, I support removing the reciprocity requirement. -- Brian E Jones, CSM, CSPO NI Virginia Tech bjo...@vt.edu > On Jan 20, 2017, at 12:24 PM, Rob Seastrom wrote: > > > Back when we were concerned that our regional free pool might precipitously > empty

Re: [arin-ppml] LAST CALL for Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-1: Reserved Pool Transfer Policy

Support with the changes concerning the reserved pool. On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 5:18 PM ARIN wrote: > The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 21 October 2016 and decided to > send Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-1: Reserved Pool Transfer Policy > to Last Call: > > The AC provided

Re: [arin-ppml] [ARIN-consult] Community Consultation on CKN23-ARIN Now Open

I support Option 3. -- Brian On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 1:34 PM Owen DeLong wrote: I support recommended option 3. Owen On Mar 27, 2017, at 12:39 , John Curran wrote: Folks - We have initiated a community consultation on a possible restructuring of

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

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 4:24 PM Owen DeLong wrote: > > > On Jul 17, 2017, at 16:36 , John Curran wrote: > > > > Albert - > > > > We’ll research into these questions and report back shortly. > > > > Thanks! > > /John > > > >> On 17 Jul 2017, at 2:53 PM,

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

On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 2:46 PM Owen DeLong wrote: > On Jul 24, 2017, at 04:03 , hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote: > > /47 or more addresses is intended to be /47, /46 . /1 and not the > reverse. The current language is "/64 or more", and I read that same > phrase as /64, /63

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

I'm in favor of this draft and +1 Albert's suggested language for wording changes. -- Brian ​ E Jones ​ On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 7:10 AM, wrote: > I am in favor of the draft, with or without the changes to make it clearer. > > I suggest the following language for

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

I would be in support of more than a /56. — Brian E Jones CSM, CSPO Network Infrastructure & Services Virginia Tech bjo...@vt.edu On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 2:30 PM Leif Sawyer wrote: > Good day, PPML! > > First, as the primary shepherd for ARIN-2017-5, I want to thank everybody

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

On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 1:20 PM Owen DeLong wrote: > I’d like to point out that I just learned of a community network that > claims they did take advantage > of the existing policy recently, so there is apparently at least one use > of the present policy. > > I support this

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised: ARIN-2017-4: Remove Reciprocity Requirement for Inter-RIR Transfers

I support this policy as revised. -- Brian On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 2:35 PM ARIN wrote: > The following has been revised: > > * Draft Policy ARIN-2017-4: Remove Reciprocity Requirement for Inter-RIR > Transfers > > Revised text is below and can be found at: >

Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements

Support RDP ARIN 2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements as written. -- Brian Jones On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 1:37 PM Scott Leibrand <scottleibr...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 > > I support RDP ARIN-2017-5 as written. > > -Scott > > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 10:31 AM,

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-10: Repeal of Immediate Need for IPv4 Address Space (NRPM Section 4.2.1.6)

I support this draft policy as written. Brian Jones On Tue, Nov 21, 2017, 17:42 ARIN <i...@arin.net> wrote: > On 16 November 2017, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) advanced > "ARIN-prop-245: Repeal of Immediate Need for IPv4 Address Space (NRPM > Section 4.2.1.6)&quo

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC Validation Upon Reassignment

all the members of the group understand the role associated with being a POC. -- Brian ​ Jones​ On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 5:43 PM, ARIN <i...@arin.net> wrote: > On 16 November 2017, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) advanced > "ARIN-prop-247: Require New POC Validation Upon Reass

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-11: Reallocation and Reassignment Language Cleanup

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:36 PM Owen DeLong wrote: > The proposed editorial changes do not conflict with the current language, > nor do they present a conflict with the revised language that will occur if > the board ratifies 2017-5. Staff can intelligently apply this update to

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2018-4: Clarification on IPv6 Sub-Assignments

Temporary or temporarily carries the more appropriate meaning from my viewpoint. -- Brian On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:19 AM, Chris Woodfield wrote: > The two terms, from my reading, are synonymous but carry different > implications, with the term “non-permanently” implying

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2018-3: Remove Reallocation Requirements for Residential Market Assignments

Support ARIN-2018-3 as written. -- Brian > On Apr 23, 2018, at 3:21 PM, ARIN wrote: > > ARIN-prop-253 signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail ___ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are

Re: [arin-ppml] IPv6 Transfers (was :Draft Policy ARIN-2018-1: Allow Inter-regional ASN Transfers

On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 4:13 PM Chris Woodfield wrote: > And I’d point to the evidence of a transfer market specifically for 16-bit > ASNs as good evidence of this. > > That said, I’d like to understand better the relative imbalance of supply > and demand for these resources

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2017-03: Update to NPRM 3.6: Annual Whois POC Validation

I support this draft policy with the new language. — Brian On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:12 PM Potter, Amy wrote: > In response to the staff & legal assessment for 2017-3, we are proposing > the following new language for subsection 3.6.5: > > > > 3.6.5 > > An invalid POC

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2018-1

On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 2:54 PM David R Huberman wrote: > > If I may, I'd like to try and re-focus the discussion of 2018-1 on the > network engineering problem that prompted this draft proposal. The > solution this draft policy proposal offers to the problem is where I think >

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised/Re-titled - Draft Policy ARIN-2017-8: Amend Community Networks

Don’t know if I responded to this for sure but agree it should be advanced. — Brian On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 3:33 PM David Farmer wrote: > Unless there are additional comments or suggestions, I plan to propose > this Policy is advanced to Recommended Draft Policy at the AC's

Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2018-3: Remove Reallocation Requirements for Residential Market Assignments

I agree with Owen that this is mostly clean up from post IPv4 exhaustion. -- Brian E Jones, CSP-SM, CSP-PO NI Virginia Tech bjo...@vt.edu > On Jul 26, 2018, at 6:44 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > I will point out that removing the requirement does not prevent anyone from > continuing to provide

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2018-2 :Clarification to ISP Initial Allocation and Permit Renumbering (Language improvement)

I support this policy. It aligns with the transfer policy better and clarifies initial allocation in section 4.2.2. -- Brian E Jones bjo...@vt.edu > On Jun 23, 2018, at 4:18 PM, Kerrie Vassall-Richards > wrote: > > > Clarification to ISP initial allocation and permit renumbering > Proposal

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2018-1: Allow Inter-regional ASN Transfers

While I do not see the burning need for this, evidence suggests that it does occur, therefore a policy to cover it seems appropriate. I support this policy. -- Brian E Jones, CSP-SM, CSP-PO NI Virginia Tech bjo...@vt.edu > On Aug 13, 2018, at 1:01 PM, WOOD Alison * DAS wrote: > > ARIN

Re: [arin-ppml] Beneficial Owners

> On Jul 16, 2018, at 5:36 AM, Ronald F. Guilmette > wrote: > > Bottom line? If goofballs from outside of ARIN's North American and > Caribbean geographical region feel the need to get chunks of IPv4 space > and then preceed to use those to screw up the Internet, then I for one > would

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2017-12: Require POC Validation Upon Reassignment

I support draft proposal 2017-12. It is a good step forward for POC validation. -- Brian ​ E Jones Agile Process Engineer ​Virginia Tech​ ​ On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 5:47 PM, Christian Tacit wrote: > Dear Community Members, > > > > The shepherds for the Draft Policy 2017-12:

Re: [arin-ppml] Requesting moderator intervention

I would have to agree with others, most email lists I am a part of, especially of this type, do not allow attachments these days. -- Brian On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 9:16 AM, Chris James wrote: > +1 > This list should NOT permit attachments. > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 2:34

Re: [arin-ppml] Board of Trustees Remands Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12

This seems completely reasonable to me. -- Brian E Jones, CSP-SM, CSP-PO NI Virginia Tech bjo...@vt.edu > On Oct 20, 2018, at 2:14 PM, Andrew Dul wrote: > > I'd like to propose to the community a rewrite of 2017-12 that would > hopefully bring it in line with the Implementation B option of

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-1: Clarify Section 4 IPv4 Request Requirements

I support this policy as written. Clarity is a good thing and section 4 can definitely use the recommended updates. — Brian Jones On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 9:00 PM Tom Fantacone wrote: > Chris, > > Thanks for the clarification. I support the policy. > > In terms of implementatio

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML Draft 2019-1

I support Draft Policy 2019-1 with the new proposed language. -- Brian E Jones, CSP-SM, CSP-PO NI Virginia Tech bjo...@vt.edu > On Apr 18, 2019, at 7:20 AM, Rudolph Daniel wrote: > > > I support this draft proposal.. > RD > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 12:00 PM

Re: [arin-ppml] Looking for final show of support on revised Advisory Council Recommendation Regarding NRPM 4.1.8. Unmet Requests

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 writ

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2019-7: Elimination of the Waiting List (was:Re: Looking for final show of support on revised Advisory Council Recommendation Regarding NRPM 4.1.8. Unmet Requests

I oppose this draft policy. — Brian Jones, CSP, CSM, CSPO NIS Virginia Tech bjo...@vt.edu On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 12:27 PM Alyssa Moore wrote: > Hi folks, > > Trying to do a temperature check here. If you're following this thread, > please indicate whether you support or oppos

Re: [arin-ppml] Of interest?

Thank you for sharing this Mike. Great Job ARIN! I hope this sets a precedence to help deter future fraudulent behavior and hope those addresses go to the folks on the waiting list to, at least for those who are trying to move toward using IPv6. -- Brian E Jones, CSP-SM, CSP-PO NI Virginia

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-15: Hijacking Authorization Not-intended

I have questions about what is considered in violation with the proposed wording. See inline comments. — Brian Jones Virginia Tech On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 7:17 PM John Santos wrote: > On 6/25/2019 05:18 PM, ARIN wrote: > > On 20 June 2019, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted "

Re: [arin-ppml] LAST CALL - Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: POC Notification and Validation Upon Reassignment or Reallocation

I support this policy and as indicated from remotely at ARIN 43 anything to help keep the assignment contacts up to date and accurate is a good thing. -- Brian Virginia Tech bjo...@vt.edu > On Apr 15, 2019, at 2:04 PM, ARIN wrote: > > The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 10 April 2019 and

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-17: Returned Addresses to the 4.10 Reserved Pool

I oppose this policy as written, mainly for the reasons Owen outlines. This would eliminate the wait list and possibly lock up useful resources now that may not be as relevant or useful in the future. It does also seem contrary to ARIN's mission in my view. — Brian Jones, CSP, CSM, CSPO NIS

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2019-9: Clarify Interactions Between NRPM 4.10 IPv6 Transition Space Requests and NRPM 4.1.8.2 Unmet Needs Requests

ices as outlined in section NRPM 4.10. Removing organizations > from the Waiting List when they receive a NRPM 4.10 assignment would hinder > the existing IPv4 operations & growth of organizations, and may provide a > disincentive to IPv6 deployment." > > > > -Kat

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2019-15: Hijacking Authorization Not-intended

I am in support of the new proposed text for ARIN-2019-15. This should make things clearer concerning the intentions of the policy and the use of the address space. — Brian Jones, CSP, CSM, CSPO NIS Virginia Tech bjo...@vt.edu On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 10:54 AM ARIN wrote: > The following

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-10: Inter-RIR M - Seeking Community Comments

requirements. — Brian Jones, CSP, CSM, CSPO NIS Virginia Tech bjo...@vt.edu On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 2:21 PM Kerrie Vassall-Richards < kerriearicha...@gmail.com> wrote: > Good day everyone, > > I am seeking community input on *Draft Policy ARIN-2019-10: Inter-RIR M > *since the last p

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-12: M Legal Jurisdiction Exclusion

+1 Scott's comments. Support — Virginia Tech bjo...@vt.edu On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 5:23 PM Scott Leibrand wrote: > Allowing entities outside the ARIN region to continue holding addresses > originally assigned to an ARIN-region organization to which the > non-ARIN-region entity is a legal

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2019-9: Clarify Interactions Between NRPM 4.10 IPv6 Transition Space Requests and NRPM 4.1.8.2 Unmet Needs Requests

I support this revised version of draft policy ARIN-2019-9 as written. Brian On Thu, May 23, 2019, 12:44 PM ARIN wrote: > The following has been revised: > > * Draft Policy ARIN-2019-9: Clarify Interactions Between NRPM 4.10 IPv6 > Transition Space Requests and NRPM 4.1.8.2 Unmet Needs

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment to Non-Connected Networks

See inline. — Brian Jones NIS Virginia Tech On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 12:41 PM Jim wrote: > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 6:00 PM John Santos wrote: > > I am opposed to proposal that ARIN should in general be facilitating > entities > being able to obtain from ARIN permanent a

Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2019-20: Harmonization of Maximum Allocation Requirements under Sections 4.1.8 (ARIN Waitlist) and 4.2.2 (Initial Allocation to ISPs)

I support this policy as written. It clarifies, unifies, and makes both sections more accurate. — Brian E Jones NIS Virginia Tech On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 4:54 PM ARIN wrote: > On 20 February 2020, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) advanced the > following Draft Policy to Recommended Draft Policy

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2019-12: M Legal Jurisdiction Exclusion

ld be reclaimed eventually by ARIN for repurposing? -- Brian > On 1/28/2020 11:52 AM, Brian Jones wrote: > > > Question: Does this mean that the entity responsible for the continued > resource holdings is subject to keeping up the POC and abuse contact > information for each of the loc

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2019-12: M Legal Jurisdiction Exclusion

Thank you for the clarification Joe. I have no further discussion of this draft at this time. — Brian Jones On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 9:15 AM Joe Provo wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 01:43:25PM -0500, Brian Jones wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 11:34 AM A

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2019-12: M Legal Jurisdiction Exclusion

Question: Does this mean that the entity responsible for the continued resource holdings is subject to keeping up the POC and abuse contact information for each of the locations or allocation blocks where it continues to use ARIN resources? — Brian Jones NI Virginia Tech bjo...@vt.edu On Tue

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2019-19 Require IPv6 before receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

— Brian Jones Virginia Tech On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 12:06 PM Andrew Dul wrote: > Happy New Year everyone... > > We had a robust discussion on this list before the New Year, but it was > clear that we don't have consensus on the current draft. Thus to help move > this draft

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

Looking at the numbers John posted concerning this issue, it tends to *look like* some of these 3x small folks decided to drop their request once they encountered the price increase. If this is the case then we should move forward with this proposal. We do not want to create a situation where

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

No one is going to want to sell off their v4 space and if they did they could certainly afford the IPv6 allocation charges. Possibly the presentation of this option could change their view? They certainly need to understand the importance of beginning to use IPv6... — Brian On Thu, Apr 16, 2020

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

Good questions Andrew.I was wondering the same thing, what is the magnitude of this issue. — Brian On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 11:30 AM Andrew Dul wrote: > John, > > Could you provide the community with a rough magnitude of this issue? > > Approximately how many of these 3x-small ISP organizations

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Reverted to Draft Policy - Draft Policy ARIN-2019-1: Clarify Section 4 IPv4 Request Requirements

I support this proposal as written. — Brian On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 10:56 AM Kat Hunter wrote: > After making adjustments to the text, ARIN staff and legal conducted a new > staff and legal review on 2019-1. You can view the updated review here: >

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2: Grandfathering of Organizations Removed from Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16

I +1 Tom's input below. I think the organizations that were on the waiting list before should receive the same benefits and restrictions they were given in the original vetting process when they were placed onto the waiting list. I also +1 Owen's comment about yes IPv4 is scarce but that's not

Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations

+1 Leif's recommended wording. — Brian bjo...@vt.edu On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 12:34 PM Leif Sawyer wrote: > "Partial returns of any IPv6 allocation that results in less than a /36 of > holding are not permitted, [...]" > > > This would seem to address Albert's issue, and remove the uncertainty

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2020-11: Replace the Image in Section 2 With a Textual Description

I support ARIN-2020-11 with one suggestion. Spell out what RIR stands for similar to the way IANA and ISP are spelled out to increase clarity and understandability. — Brian On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 5:20 PM ARIN wrote: > On 17 December 2020, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) advanced >

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2020-11: Replace the Image in Section 2 With a Textual Description

needing more coffee > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 10:59:07AM -0500, Joe Provo wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 08:55:34AM -0500, Brian Jones wrote: > > > I support ARIN-2020-11 with one suggestion. Spell out what RIR stands > for > > > similar to the way IAN

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Editorial Change ARIN-edit-2020-9: Section 8 Editorial Clean-up

t; > > > ___ > ARIN-PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net > <mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net>). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing lis

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Editorial Change ARIN-edit-2020-9: Section 8 Editorial Clean-up

this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues. Brian Jones bjo...

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

> On Mar 11, 2022, at 1:25 PM, Mike Burns wrote: > > Are you saying that because investors could buy more addresses (through > demonstrating to ARIN utilization on operating networks) that would raise > IPv4 purchase prices? Because they would add demand to the transfer market? > I’m

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

Mike, IMHO Allowing for rent-seeking behavior increases the cost to those who are actually building and operating networks, therefore further limiting the availability of Internet number resources available for those with less funds to purchase them. — Brian > On Mar 11, 2022, at 10:09 AM,

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised and Retitled - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations

Speaking for myself, I oppose this policy if this is removed: “...entities building and operating networks…”. If you are not building and operating networks, what are the resources needed for? This policy seems to oppose the fair and impartial dissemination of Internet number resources for

Re: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - October 2023 - ARIN-2023-7

adding a definition (as a separate proposal) of ORG-ID. > > Suggest: > An ORG-ID is a unique handle pointing to an Organization record in the > ARIN database. All resources in the ARIN database are tied to ORG-IDs. > > Owen > > > On Oct 26, 2023, at 11:08, Brian Jones wrote

Re: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - October 2023 - ARIN-2023-7

in ARIN 52 who pointed out there can be essentially one organization with multiple OrgID’s e.g. divisions/subdivisions. Fwiw Brian Jones Virginia Tech ARIN Advisory Council NRPM Working Group NomCom > On Oct 25, 2023, at 11:36 AM, ARIN wrote: > > ARIN-2023-7: Clarification of NRPM

Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2023-5: Clean-up of NRPM Sections 4.3.4, 4.4, 4.10 and 6.10.1

“block/s”. _ Brian Jones > On Oct 25, 2023, at 11:36 AM, ARIN wrote: > > On 20 October 2023, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) advanced the following > Draft Policy to Recommended Draft Policy status: > > * ARIN-2023-5: Clean-up of NRPM Sections 4.3.4, 4.4, 4.10 and 6.

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2022-3: Remove Officer Attestation Requirement for 8.5.5

in efforts to bring our legacy resources under an RSA agreement. Brian Jones bjo...@vt.edu > On Aug 24, 2022, at 3:50 PM, Matthew Wilder wrote: > > Hi PPML, > > Staff and Legal review has been conducted for Draft Policy ARIN-2022-3. The > relevant bit for the com

Re: [arin-ppml] Transferring Waiting List Space - Feedback Requested

the maximum holdings for eligibility. I would not favor eliminating the transfer of Waitlist blocks. I think five years serves the purpose for that. Brian Jones Virginia Tech ARIN Advisory Council > On Nov 14, 2022, at 4:42 PM, WOOD Alison * DAS > wrote: > > Hello! > > The

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2022-12: ARIN-2022-12: Direct Assignment Language Update

ader reads well. If it is just “End-user Allocations” then I’m in favor of all the mentioned changes for Draft Policy ARIN-2022-12. Brian Jones Virginia Tech ARIN Advisory Council signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP ___ ARIN-PPML Yo

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2022-8: Streamlining Section 11 Policy Language

See inline comments. Brian Jones Virginia Tech ARIN Advisory Council > On Oct 31, 2022, at 8:09 PM, Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML > wrote: > > I’m not sure we’re looking to encourage greater use so much as to make the > policy more comprehensible. Raising awareness that there

[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2023-1: Retire 4.2.1.4 Slow Start

of the NRPM dovetails into current work being done by the Advisory Council NRPM working group in revising and cleaning up section 4 of the NRPM that deals primarily with IPv4 allocations. A simple ya or nay will suffice in helping us determine the pulse of the community. Sincerely, Shepherds: Brian Jones

Re: [arin-ppml] Sections 6.5.1.a and 6.5.1.b - More section 6 Potential simplifications from the NRPM Working Group

Thank you for your feedback Dale. We are still gathering data at this point and I appreciate the mention of RFCs as I had not really considered that angle. Brian Jones ARIN Advisory Council (NRPM Working Group) > On Dec 5, 2023, at 5:10 PM, Dale W. Carder wrote: > > Thus spake Br

Re: [arin-ppml] Sections 6.5.1.a and 6.5.1.b - More section 6 Potential simplifications from the NRPM Working Group

Thank you for the input Martin. Do you feel strongly about changing from LIR to ISP, or would you be okay either way as long as the definition is clear that they are interchangeable? Thank you again for the feedback and discussion points, they are very much appreciated. Brian Jones ARIN

Re: [arin-ppml] Sections 6.5.1.a and 6.5.1.b - More section 6 Potential simplifications from the NRPM Working Group

working group. Brian Jones ARIN Advisory Council (NRPM Working Group) > On Dec 9, 2023, at 5:10 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > This is a step in the wrong direction… If you’re going to unify the > terminology, ISP->LIR would be the better choice. signature.asc Description:

Re: [arin-ppml] Sections 6.5.1.a and 6.5.1.b - More section 6 Potential simplifications from the NRPM Working Group

Thank you for the input John. The NRPM working group will take this under advisement and I appreciate the perspective that maybe this is just an editorial change if consensus is reached about which term to use. Brian Jones ARIN Advisory Council (NRPM Working Group) > On Dec 5, 2023, at 6

Re: [arin-ppml] Sections 6.5.1.a and 6.5.1.b - More section 6 Potential simplifications from the NRPM Working Group

Very good. Thank you Owen for detailing your explanation. This is very helpful. Brian Jones ARIN Advisory Council (NRPM Working Group) > On Dec 12, 2023, at 2:18 PM, o...@delong.com wrote: > > ISP is a very ambiguous term which carries a lot of different connotations to > diff

[arin-ppml] Sections 6.5.1.a and 6.5.1.b - More section 6 Potential simplifications from the NRPM Working Group

be a better fit if moved to section 2 of the NRPM which is the Definitions section. Your thoughts about moving the IPv6 nibble boundaries definition from section 6.5.1.b to section 2 would be appreciated. _ Brian Jones NRPM Working Group signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2023-1: Retire 4.2.1.4. Slow Start

Thank you. As one of the shepherds on this now Recommended Draft Policy the feedback on retiring this section of the NRPM is appreciated. Brian Jones ARIN Advisory Council > On Nov 28, 2023, at 1:34 PM, Dale W. Carder wrote: > > Thus spake ARIN (i...@arin.net) on Tue, Nov 21, 2023