Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 167, Issue 80

I have seen proposals in different RIRs from /23 to /20 and to be honest I believe that /22 is fine for newcomers or to a maximum or as a maximum an existing one. /23 is way too small and almost useless to most cases. Even /22 are not much addresses but enough for someone to exist in the

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Advisory Council Recommendation Regarding NRPM 4.1.8. Unmet Requests

I would agree with you with regards to those who have applied properly. However there are minimum acceptable blocks of /18 and /15 on that list. That doesn't sound any reasonable unfortunatelly. Fernando On Fri, 24 May 2019, 16:30 Tom Pruitt, wrote: > I do not support the new proposal,

Re: [arin-ppml] Waiting List IPv4 blocks transferred after issuance

Yeah, if someone is leasing IP addresses means that he (the resource holder) doesn't have use for them anymore. As such ARIN (or any other RIR) should recover those addresses then. IP addresses were never made of thought to be leased in this way as asset that can be leased. On 28/05/2019

Re: [arin-ppml] IP leasing policy

RIN-PPML *On Behalf Of *Fernando Frediani *Sent:* Thursday, May 30, 2019 2:54 PM *To:* 'arin-ppml' *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] IP leasing policy Mike, sorry to disagree with you again about this topic. The mechanism is to adapt the RIR policies for this new scenario where the RIR keeps total c

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

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

Re: [arin-ppml] IP leasing policy

with the IPs the RIR has assigned to him. For me is very clear the difference between all these scenarios (and others) and the one mentioned above. Regards Fernando On 29/05/2019 22:27, William Herrin wrote: On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 12:02 PM Fernando Frediani mailto:fhfredi...@gmail.com>>

Re: [arin-ppml] Waiting List IPv4 blocks transferred after issuance

of this discussion. Regards, Mike *From:*ARIN-PPML *On Behalf Of *Fernando Frediani *Sent:* Wednesday, May 29, 2019 8:51 AM *To:* arin-ppml@arin.net *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Waiting List IPv4 blocks transferred after issuance +1 On 28/05/2019 23:52, Owen DeLong wrote: Mike, Yes

Re: [arin-ppml] Waiting List IPv4 blocks transferred after issuance

+1 On 28/05/2019 23:52, Owen DeLong wrote: Mike, Yes and no. I believe that the lack of legacy holders for any blocks issued under 4.1.8 reduces the need for the market. Defunct organizations can easily be reclaimed in this space because they stop paying their ARIN bill. Eliminating the

Re: [arin-ppml] IP leasing policy

+1 What I am seeing by some positions are attempts to turn a fraudulent act into "something normal" because "market demands" and a total diversion of what IP space should ever be making look normal a company who received IP space from the RIR and **does not use it** rent it to someone else a

Re: [arin-ppml] IP leasing policy

of those proposals. Regards, Mike *From:*ARIN-PPML *On Behalf Of *Fernando Frediani *Sent:* Thursday, May 30, 2019 12:46 PM *To:* arin-ppml *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] IP leasing policy +1 What I am seeing by some positions are attempts to turn a fraudulent act into "something n

Re: [arin-ppml] IP leasing policy

sset and something irrevocable and unrecoverable. Regards Fernando -Scott On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 2:46 PM Fernando Frediani mailto:fhfredi...@gmail.com>> wrote: A lease policy should never exist in my opinion and registries should stand strong against it for the simple reason that

Re: [arin-ppml] Waiting List IPv4 blocks transferred after issuance

quirements for abuse contacts of the lessee, etc. I think such a policy would be in-scope and would yield, in a negative way, to the desired results of the anti-BGP hacking policy. Regards, Mike *From:* Robert Clarke *Sent:* Wednesday, May 29, 2019 4:24 PM *To:* Mike Burns *Cc:* Fernando

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 167, Issue 153

+1 I also support /22 and believe that's a reasonable size for a waiting list, specially for a newcomer. If anyone has official numbers of how much currentlly comes into the waiting list I am open to discuss a different size. Fernando On Fri, 24 May 2019, 15:51 Scott Leibrand, wrote: > What

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

Well, I can't see how allowing IPv6 transfers or not can be compared to a 'feature' and discourage people to adopt it or not. If they do this based on this premise it is much worse for them than for the rest of the internet. And going beyond as it is normally discussed in these policy lists it

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

Well said ! On 18/06/2019 13:53, hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote: The main problem I see is that this policy for the first time will open the door up to IPv6 transfers.  I do not agree with IPv6 transfers. Me either Up to this point, the primary reason why we allow transfers of IPv4 and 16 bit

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 the RIR to participate on any market place and thefore to keep the waiting list, BUT limited to a maximum of /22 regardless of the size of who request and ONLY for newcomers as it is in others RIRs. A single /24 is useless for majority of uses, even for CGNAT and other techniques that

Re: [arin-ppml] Fwd: Advisory Council Recommendation Regarding NRPM 4.1.8. Unmet Requests

I don't think it should be regardless of the size. That must always be a limit. If it's over, it's over and anything little left should favor newcomers to make sure they can properly exist in the Internet and do business in Dual-Stack. Leaving to any prefix size just make it more difficult

Re: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Recommendation Regarding NRPM 4.1.8. Unmet Requests

that is already used to validate people's justification for more addresses. Fernando On 16/05/2019 15:37, David Farmer wrote: On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 1:23 PM Alan Batie <mailto:a...@batie.org>> wrote: On 5/16/19 7:58 AM, Fernando Frediani wrote: > I like the idea of demonstrate IPv

Re: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Recommendation Regarding NRPM 4.1.8. Unmet Requests

100% IPv6 deployment is an utopia and will not happen not even in the next decade for various reasons, therefore IPv4 is still needed for for basic CGNAT, 464XLAT and other techniques that allows an ISPs or End Users to exist in the Internet, therefore it is always better for more people can

Re: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Recommendation Regarding NRPM 4.1.8. Unmet Requests

Everything that is in the waiting list should be limited to a /22 per request. There is no sense nor is reasonable now a days to fulfill a request to a /18 or even a /15 which is the case there. Perhaps it can be adjusted at some point and more people can be more fairly served. Regards

Re: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Recommendation Regarding NRPM 4.1.8. Unmet Requests

Well, the question is simpler. Among the rules applied to any RIR the issue IP allocation is that people must prove they *at any time* are using the resources issued to them or have need for that. If one received both IPv4 and IPv6 but is is not using IPv6 then he is not observing these

Re: [arin-ppml] Discussion Petition (Proposal has not been accepted as a Draft Policy)

Hello I support this discussion petition, at least the discussion to carry on. Without going into the merit there is nothing wrong about discussing it more in deep as it's a pretty important topic not only to ARIN region but for the whole Internet. Fernando Frediani FF Consulting On 26/04

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

;ARIN-PPML en nombre de Owen DeLong" mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net> en nombre de o...@delong.com <mailto:o...@delong.com>> escribió: On May 1, 2019, at 18:08 , Fernando Frediani mailto:fhfredi...@gmail.com>> wrote: On 01/05

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

RPKI, BGPSec and other related stuff if a different thing from what this proposal suggests. While the first ones are operational stuff, therefore how each one operates and although advised and good practice is always completely optional and discretionary to each network the second is not

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

link in your assertion is that for the former you have police (and other bodies) to enforce them... and for BGP you have only good will :) El jue., 2 de may. de 2019 a la(s) 10:37, Fernando Frediani (fhfredi...@gmail.com <mailto:fhfredi...@gmail.com>) escribió: The same way the exist

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

The same way the existence of laws stating certain practices are wrong and forbidden doesn't stop people from committing crimes. Fernando On 02/05/2019 12:33, Nicolas Antoniello wrote: Jordi, As I´ve mentioned @ LACNIC discussions regarding this policy: the existence of a statement in ARIN

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

ress Space is to make the Internet work where it should not for people use in a very private and out of what is was always intended to. Fernando On 02/05/2019 12:35, William Herrin wrote: On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 11:50 PM Fernando Frediani mailto:fhfredi...@gmail.com>> wrote: Why peopl

Re: [arin-ppml] prop266 - re-framing the discussion

On 02/05/2019 12:16, Scott Leibrand wrote: ARIN’s only authority is to over their registry of who “has” which addresses, so the only thing I can imagine they could do would be to threaten to revoke unrelated registrations from a transit provider who willfully or negligently accepted the BGP

Re: [arin-ppml] prop266 - re-framing the discussion

On 02/05/2019 12:41, Scott Leibrand wrote: If the hijacker is someone with no relationship with ARIN, we can’t punish them by kicking them out of a club they’re not a member of. If you’re ok with ARIN doing nothing about hijacks by entities who don’t have ARIN resources, fine: that’s the

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

covered on its action. Fernando On 02/05/2019 19:21, William Herrin wrote: On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 8:45 AM Fernando Frediani <mailto:fhfredi...@gmail.com>> wrote: Not sure if this is really the main discussion but the point about owning IP addresses was an example of

Re: [arin-ppml] [EXT] Re: Open Petition for ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

On 01/05/2019 17:17, Joe Provo wrote: "Distribution function" is indeed merely agreeing that the data recorded in the registry is accurate. There's no dibursement of anything. When we bought our house and land, the registry of deeds was similar only involved in verifying that the transfer from

Re: [arin-ppml] Fwd: Advisory Council Meeting Results - June 2019

So, if I understand it correctly regarding ARIN-2019-2 the anyone can keep requesting a block of whatever size ? The issue with new proposal is that there will never be a consensus on whatever choice, block size restriction or leave it opened to silly requests. I wonder if there is any way

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-14: No Specified Transfers for 4.1.8.2 Blocks

do things in an appropriate manner when the time comes for them. Regards Fernando Frediani On 08/07/2019 14:56, Andrew Dul wrote: Hello, With the ARIN board recently adopting the AC's recommendation to re-instate the wait-list policy, we should now reconsider this draft policy to the wait

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-10: Inter-RIR M - Seeking Community Comments / 2019-04

.) On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 03:18:22AM -0300, Fernando Frediani wrote: Sure, I believe those are your beliefs. On the flip side, my beliefs are that it should be possible to transfer IPv6 blocks from one RIR (ARIN) to another RIR, and vice versa for reasons mentioned in the last few months. What

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

this draft if it's changed to reflect this scenario. Best regards Fernando Frediani On 29/07/2019 18:32, Mike Burns wrote: Hi Mike, My purpose in authoring this proposal was to starve the Waiting list to death by preventing further unpredictable influxes of addresses. I would support

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

*ARIN-PPML *On Behalf Of *Fernando Frediani *Sent:* Thursday, August 15, 2019 6:04 PM *To:* arin-ppml@arin.net *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-17: Returned Addresses to the 4.10 Reserved Pool The waiting list is a necessary and fair way to manage what is left for the RIR to

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

arguments and not your personal interpretations of my motives in any future replies. This is a frequent occurrence for me as a broker and it bothers me. Regards, Mike *From:*ARIN-PPML *On Behalf Of *Fernando Frediani *Sent:* Friday, August 16, 2019 11:17 AM *To:* arin-ppml@arin.net *Subject:* Re

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

N-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net]*On Behalf Of*Fernando Frediani *Sent:*Tuesday, July 30, 2019 6:44 AM *To:*arin-ppml mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net>> *Subject:*Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-17: Returned Addresses to the 4.10 Reserved Pool The point is that you

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

lto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of Fernando Frediani Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2019 6:44 AM To: arin-ppml Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-17: Returned Addresses to the 4.10 Reserved Pool The point is that you treating IP marketing as something 'natural' or a 'default route'

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

ecessary, it will likely impact many more people > adversely in the future if the waiting list is more populated, as I believe > it will, with members placing their lottery bets. How many new ORG-IDs will > be granted to members holding more than a /20, for the purpose of avoiding > that

Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2019-3: Update 4.10 – IPv6 Deployment Block

I would like to support this proposal in full, but before just want to clarify two points: - If I understand correctly an organization may receive multiple /24's (or a combination of other sizes) for this propose up to a maximum of a /21 and not a /21 every six months. - Any blocks received

Re: [arin-ppml] Is it time to start requirement to have IPv6 in place before receiving Section 8.5 transfered IPv4 addresses?

I may be wrong but it looks like that for some people at some point the only thing that matters is the sensation someone may be trying to tell them how to do things than if IPv6 should be deployed or not. Right, how long more will we be in this back and forth of "I know I have to deploy IPv6

Re: [arin-ppml] Is it time to start requirement to have IPv6 in place before receiving Section 8.5 transfered IPv4 addresses?

in a eventual proposal there could be well defined exceptions at the discretion of ARIN's staff when properly justified the unavoidable limitations. Fernando On Wed, 28 Aug 2019, 12:20 Owen DeLong, wrote: > > > On Aug 27, 2019, at 22:07 , Fernando Frediani > wrote: > > I may be

Re: [arin-ppml] Is it time to start requirement to have IPv6 in place before receiving Section 8.5 transfered IPv4 addresses?

Hello Albert Initially it sounds interesting discussion to have. My suggestion to you is to skip this part to just have an IPv6 allocation as in my view does little or no much practical difference. Instead the second scenario that you mentioned seems much more reasonable at the stage we find

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

to new entrants, but don't see the current waiting list as a great help to them vs. the 4.10 pool or the transfer market, both of which allow you your allocation in a timely fashion. Best Regards, Tom Fantacone On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 11:39:32 -0400 *Fernando Frediani mailto:fhfredi

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 also don't believe this is a good change to be made for the same reasons outlines by staff, therefore I can't support it as well Thanks Fernando On 30/07/2019 16:49, Brian Jones wrote: With the clarification that organizations will be removed from the waiting list if they receive an

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

Totally support this draft policy. It makes sense and is fair and logic to the IP assignment process. Fernando On 25/07/2019 13:26, ARIN wrote: On 18 July 2019 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) advanced the following Draft Policy to Recommended Draft Policy status: Recommended Draft Policy

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

addresses should also be able to go to new entrants, not only to 4.10 reserved pool conditions. Best regards Fernando Frediani On 25/07/2019 17:32, Tom Fantacone wrote: I found the wording of the Problem Statement on this one a bit confusing. However, after deciphering the effect of the actual

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-10: Inter-RIR M - Seeking Community Comments / 2019-04

On 17/07/2019 16:40, Job Snijders wrote: (recognising that this thread is less and less about M and more and more about 2019-04. I apologize for having contributed to a conflation of the two policy proposals. I hope the AC will recontextualize these comments) I hope this is not an attempt to

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

I fully agree with the comments on below message. Fine IPv4 and 16 bit ASN transfers but not to IPv6. Some people justify that it is to avoid renumbering, but I don't consider a strong enough reason to allow IPv6 transfers. Renumbering is part of the business whenever necessary and not

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

On 16/07/2019 01:36, Job Snijders wrote: On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 11:17:48PM -0400, hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote: This means the ENTIRE BLOCK has been assigned to ARIN, and therefore ARIN controls the reverse DNS of this entire block. I think you may be overstating the 'control' aspect. ARIN is

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

I think regardless there would be an increase in the IPv6 routing table Inter-RIR transfers should not be allowed at all for the other given reasons as such: - Fracturing of Reverse DNS zone - Complication of management of each /12 - No shortage of IPv6 - IPv6 migration and readdressing is

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

I will comment only in one of the points, the other I believe are really well explained by others and it doesn't seem good to 'rain on the wet floor'. On 15/07/2019 19:58, Job Snijders wrote: - Readdressing is part of the business and not something prohibitive Can you elaborate? I

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

On Tue, 16 Jul 2019, Job Snijders wrote: Dear Fernando, On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 08:13:12PM -0300, Fernando Frediani wrote: I will comment only in one of the points, the other I believe are really well explained by others and it doesn't seem good to 'rain on the wet floor'. I'm sorry but I don'

[arin-ppml] Consultation about Legacy Resources

Hello all. Recently I have been reading some content about IPv4 exhaustion in order to understand better the problematic and I am also working on some policy proposal drafts and wanted to do a consultation to the community that perhaps have knowledge about some of the points I would like to

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

of statements and principles (some of them never get old), although not repeated in 7020 are still very valid and actual to the present days. Best regards Fernando Frediani On 30/09/2019 18:56, John Curran wrote: On 30 Sep 2019, at 4:23 PM, Fernando Frediani <mailto:fhfredi...@gmail.com>&

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

the address holder for a policy violation if pressure from that side helps. This is more a point of view one how the things happen in practice or should happen and I personally don't agree with that in full. Regards, Mike -Original Message- From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of Fernando F

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

Hi I am not sure we are talking exactly the same thing as the PDP are more guidelines of procedures that must be followed when developing a new policy. With regards NRPM Section 1 it is pretty short and doesn't contain everything that matters to all topics discussed here so the intent to

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

procedures for properly transfer addresses from one organization to another. Fernando Frediani On 01/10/2019 12:27, Mike Burns wrote: Hi Albert, Your first issue is a requirement for operational use as being something descended from heaven. It was simply the best method to fulfil our stewardship

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

e purposes of policy-compliance only. So why trade the lack of insight into IPv4 block contact information for the maintenance of this fig-leaf? Regards, Mike Burns *From:* ARIN-PPML *On Behalf Of *Fernando Frediani *Sent:* Saturday, September 28, 2019 7:20 PM *To:* arin-ppml *Subject:* R

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

why trade the lack of insight into IPv4 block contact information for the maintenance of this fig-leaf? Regards, Mike Burns From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of Fernando Frediani Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2019 7:20 PM To: arin-ppml Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-20

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

I strongly oppose this proposal. Leasing of IP addresses in such way should never be permmited and is a distortion of the way IP addresses must be used by organizations. The main reason is simple: if an organization is "leasing" IP address it is a clear sign that the organization does not have

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

o define a hijack as being non-compliant with a lease policy will enable ARIN to pressure the address holder for a policy violation if pressure from that side helps. Regards, Mike -Original Message- From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of Fernando Frediani Sent: Monday, September 30, 2019 4:36 PM To

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

That's the main point. If such thing would ever becomes normal I have no doubt it would create "internet landlords" and that's one of the reasons I consider leasing a total misuse of the IP address propose. I see by the many different views of the questions and even from those who would be

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

ARIN make the policies that were agreed and must be followed by everybody who signed a contract with them and which will surely be honored by any court. Any business has rules and regulations to be followed and not always Congress make them. It's quiet normal really. This proposal does not make

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

resolution regarding the topic in requesting AC to consider changes to encourage migration to IPv6. Best regards Fernando Frediani On 06/11/2019 14:55, ARIN wrote: On 1 November 2019, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted "ARIN-prop-278: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers"

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

On 12/11/2019 01:38, Michel Py wrote: The enterprise market will not adopt IPv6. If it takes splitting ARIN in two, so be it. Frankly at this time I would welcome it. IPv6 is only trouble for me, and I do not think ARIN is representing my interests. You have a few options here: 1) Accept

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

g any IPv6 in place, and therefore might be adversely affected. Thanks, Albert Erdmann Network Administrator Paradise On Line Inc. On Thu, 7 Nov 2019, Owen DeLong wrote:   On Nov 6, 2019, at 13:40 , Fernando Frediani wrote: I wanted to kindly request AC members attention to all objecti

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

As a registry it has full rights to establish the policies the community find to work better for the region in a well defined and established process. Among its rights are to define the requirements for something related to registration to happen as for example transfers. Regards Fernando On

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

One thing I get surprised often is the amount effort some people prefer to put in repealing IPv6 than to deploy it. Although I keep thinking that this proposal doesn't force anyone automatically to do something, I fully agree with what was said by Owen that "Business has a responsibility to

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

To those who oppose because they find the mechanism in the proposal is not effective do you have an alternative and more effective text to propose so the author may consider a change. I guess if you the current is ineffective the alternative would have to be more complex but still objective.

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

On 06/11/2019 20:40, Michel Py wrote: None of my customers have IPv6. None of my suppliers have IPv6. My current upstream does not have IPv6. If Google goes IPv6-only, I will find another search engine that values my business. There are ZERO others that I wish to connect to that require me

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

I wanted to kindly request AC members attention to all objections based on the argument that "ARIN is forcing someone to do something on their own network". This is NOT true at all and not the propose of this proposal therefore I believe these kind of objections have been refuted multiple times

Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2019-10: Inter-RIR M

though is not this one but the other stated in my previous message. Best regards Fernando On 14/10/2019 17:39, William Herrin wrote: On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 11:17 AM Fernando Frediani mailto:fhfredi...@gmail.com>> wrote: On 14/10/2019 14:49, Owen DeLong wrote: > You have th

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN 2019-13

Hello. Thanks for sending these important explanation and point and congratulations to ARIN legal staff for this. I would comment further saying that this type of assessment raises the importance to some points used in some discussions sometimes like "The internet evolved in X aspect and we

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

Exactly, and the main justification for this proposal to allow subleasing  is a total misuse of IP addressing and a try to privilege specific companies in detriment to all others. I do not agree that legitimizing leasing as such increases accessibility to IPv4 space. Organization already have

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

which is available and works. Regarding the analogy the car is a private property, while the IP space by contract is not (Section 7 of the RSA) Fernando Frediani On 01/11/2019 14:41, Scott Leibrand wrote: In my opinion, it makes sense to allow leasing if we require that addresses only be (re

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

9, Owen DeLong wrote: On Nov 6, 2019, at 13:40 , Fernando Frediani wrote: I wanted to kindly request AC members attention to all objections based on the argument that "ARIN is forcing someone to do something on their own network”. This is NOT true at all and not the propose of this prop

Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2019-10: Inter-RIR M

Agree with this point od view and I remain opposed to the proposal as written with any possibility to transfer IPv6 and 32Bit ASN Inter-RIR even for M Suggest it to be more clear in the text. Fernando Frediani On Thu, 10 Oct 2019, 22:35 David Farmer, wrote: > I'm fine with what Staff has b

Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2019-10: Inter-RIR M

On 12/10/2019 13:58, William Herrin wrote: On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 6:29 AM > wrote: I agree.  The only reason for this transfer thing was the shortage of IPv4 addresses and 16 bit ASN numbers.  There is no shortage of IPv6 addresses or 32

Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2019-10: Inter-RIR M

Fernando Frediani wrote: On 12/10/2019 13:58, William Herrin wrote: On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 6:29 AM wrote: I agree.  The only reason for this transfer thing was the shortage of IPv4 addresses and 16 bit ASN numbers.  There is no shortage of IPv6 addresses or 32 bit ASN. Therefore, I agree

Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2019-10: Inter-RIR M

, William Herrin wrote: On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 7:50 AM Fernando Frediani wrote: On 12/10/2019 13:58, William Herrin wrote: On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 6:29 AM wrote: I agree. The only reason for this transfer thing was the shortage of IPv4 addresses and 16 bit ASN numbers. There is no shortage

Re: [arin-ppml] DoD to sell 13 x /8 of its IPv4 Blocks over the next 10 years and need for ARIN-2019-19

us 2 or 3 years. However the > DOD has 10 > >> years to sell, and by then, the IPv4 market may already be > collapsed to > >> near zero levels depending upon the uptake of IPv6, which will be > lead by > >> DOD purchases of IPv6 only equipment to follow th

Re: [arin-ppml] DoD to sell 13 x /8 of its IPv4 Blocks over the next 10 years and need for ARIN-2019-19

these pratices which would not only be bad for themselves but for most organizations. In any way they cannot hold it much longer at the risk it rottens. > > Albert Erdmann > Network Administrator > Paradise On Line Inc. > > On Thu, 19 Dec 2019, Fernando Frediani wrote: &

[arin-ppml] DoD to sell 13 x /8 of its IPv4 Blocks over the next 10 years

inally, an important detail to highlight in the report is: "(D) /The plan of the Secretary to transition all Department addresses to IPv6./" Let's see who will be the big buyers and how will this affect the IPv4 value for the next years. Regards Fernando Frediani __

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-1: Clarify Holding Period for Resources Received via 4.1.8 Waitlist

May I ask how this situation will avoid that someone to register a new company, get into the waiting list, receive a /22 and right after that be "purchased" by another company which is not entitled to be in the waiting list anymore bypassing the restriction ? Although it may not be the

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

ort this proposal or with pain if you do not. Therefore I keep supporting this proposal and would also support IPv6 requirements for receiving a block via the ARIN wait-list. Best regards Fernando Frediani On 13/01/2020 14:40, Michael Peddemors wrote: Frankly, I agree with earlier detract

Re: [arin-ppml] Fwd: Advisory Council Meeting Results - December 2019

What a great thing to read about ARIN-2019-18 and a good message to 'lessors-to-be' or 'number resource landlords'. Well done AC. On 03/01/2020 18:42, ARIN wrote: The minutes from the ARIN Advisory Council's 19 December 2019 meeting have been published:

Re: [arin-ppml] Fwd: Advisory Council Meeting Results - December 2019

--Original Message- > From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of > hostmas...@uneedus.com > Sent: Friday, January 03, 2020 4:59 PM > To: Fernando Frediani > Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Fwd: Advisory Council Meeting Results - December > 2019 > > There ar

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-21: Reserved Pool Replenishment

in the waiting list as I see it as a minimum fair chance for newcomers to get some space the in a similar way all others had in the past. So I think your proposal based on the numbers below make sense. Regards Fernando Frediani On 27/12/2019 00:25, David Farmer wrote: - With regards returning any

Re: [arin-ppml] 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)

Support this proposal. Make sense to harmonize given the current scenario. In other RIRs it works or is planned to work in the same way. Regards Fernando Frediani On 24/12/2019 11:38, ARIN wrote: On 19 December 2019, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted "ARIN-prop-279: Harmoniz

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-21: Reserved Pool Replenishment

There are two points to analyze in this proposal: - Any returned, reclaimed or revoked addresses that belong originally to the reserved pools to be returned to them. I think this was pretty obvious and was already done this way and wouldn't be necessary to state it again. Could the author

Re: [arin-ppml] Fwd: Advisory Council Meeting Results - December 2019

On 05/01/2020 15:26, hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote: It is also likely that the policy of many large ISP's to give a /60 or /56 by default instead of a /48 may not be motivated by any attempt at address conservation, but simply to prevent the ISP from having to ask for more v6 space from

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-1: Clarify Holding Period for Resources Received via 4.1.8 Waitlist

Just to make it clear for record I oppose this proposal as written for the reasons stated below and believe it requires necessary adjustments. Regards Fernando On 26/02/2020 02:54, Fernando Frediani wrote: May I ask how this situation will avoid that someone to register a new company, get

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

On 18/04/2020 05:26, Owen DeLong wrote: ... Admittedly, /48s for everyone still isn’t gaining as much traction as we’d like due to a combination of IPv4-think at some ISPs and other reasons I have trouble understanding. Thankfully it is not ! E.G. I once had a discussion with the IPv6

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

On 19/04/2020 05:07, Owen DeLong wrote: Right… IETF designed a good architecture and then came under pressure from a bunch of people with an IPv4 mindset and given the modern state of the IETF decided to just punt on the whole thing rather than waste more time on an argument where people

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

On 18/04/2020 17:49, Owen DeLong wrote: ... It would depend on the nature of the fee waiver. If they perceived it as a temporary stall resulting in the same fee increase in 3-5 years, I think you’d get mixed results. If it was a permanent “we won’t charge you extra until your IPv4 holdings

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

On 18/04/2020 18:44, Owen DeLong wrote: ... Handing out a /48 to each end site is a core engineering design that was put into IPv6 for many valid reasons. You continue to rail against it, yet you’ve provided no reason or basis for your claim that it is “an exaggeration” or that it is in any

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

On 19/04/2020 01:38, David Farmer wrote: I support this policy as written, as I said previously, I recommend a couple of changes, but I won't repeat the details of those changes here. Regarding the current discussion of /48 assignments to residential customers, that is the architecture as

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

I support this proposal. It's fair to everybody and helps avoid fraud. Regards Fernando On 14/05/2020 11:56, 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:

  1   2   3   >