Let's fix the math I broke. Mea culpa. Inline. I think I got it right this
time. :)
On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 11:46 AM Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 4:25 PM David Farmer wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 2:08 PM Martin Hannigan
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 30,
On 1/3/20, 12:25 PM, "ARIN-PPML on behalf of Owen DeLong"
wrote:
> On Dec 26, 2019, at 16:38 , Fernando Frediani
wrote:
>
> There are two points to analyze in this proposal:
>
> - Any returned, reclaimed or revoked addresses that belong originally to
the
> On Dec 26, 2019, at 16:38 , Fernando Frediani wrote:
>
> 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
On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 4:25 PM David Farmer wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 2:08 PM Martin Hannigan
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 09:15 Joe Provo wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 01:00:15PM -0600, David Farmer wrote:
>>> > On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 12:01 PM John Curran
Hello David.
Thanks for the responses and for the numbers below.
I have to agree that 4.10 and 4.4 specially should always be treated
with higher importance than the waiting-list.
My initial concern was that three years were maybe too much, but looking
at these numbers it doesn't seem to.
I'm so glad you guys can read my mind.
Thanks.
On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 4:40 PM John Sweeting wrote:
> David
>
> Those are the number of /24s per year. We knew what you really were asking
> for.
>
> Thanks
> John S
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Dec 30, 2019, at 5:25 PM, David Farmer wrote:
David
Those are the number of /24s per year. We knew what you really were asking for.
Thanks
John S
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 30, 2019, at 5:25 PM, David Farmer wrote:
?
John,
Those are the number of IPv4 micro allocations per year per type, I assume
because that is what I asked for.
John,
Those are the number of IPv4 micro allocations per year per type, I assume
because that is what I asked for.
However, thinking about it more, I probably should have asked for the
number /24 equivalents per year per type.
They are probably very close to the same numbers, but not necessarily
David - here you go
Year
# IX
# CI
2013
12
1
2014
21
0
2015
15
3
2016
7
2
2017
17
8
2018
19
0
2019
18
0
Let us know if you need anything else.
Thanks
John S.
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 30, 2019, at 4:25 PM, David Farmer wrote:
?
On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 2:08 PM
On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 2:08 PM Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 09:15 Joe Provo wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 01:00:15PM -0600, David Farmer wrote:
>> > On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 12:01 PM John Curran wrote:
>> [snip]
>> > > It is certainly the case that if you wanted
On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 09:15 Joe Provo wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 01:00:15PM -0600, David Farmer wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 12:01 PM John Curran wrote:
> [snip]
> > > It is certainly the case that if you wanted ARIN to do something
> different
> > > than that, the alternative
On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 01:00:15PM -0600, David Farmer wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 12:01 PM John Curran wrote:
[snip]
> > It is certainly the case that if you wanted ARIN to do something different
> > than that, the alternative would need to be clearly spelt out in policy ???
> > the highly
On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 12:01 PM John Curran wrote:
> On 26 Dec 2019, at 10:25 PM, David Farmer wrote:
>
>
> Responses are inline;
>
> On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 6:38 PM Fernando Frediani
> wrote:
>
>> There are two points to analyze in this proposal:
>>
>> - Any returned, reclaimed or revoked
On 26 Dec 2019, at 10:25 PM, David Farmer
mailto:far...@umn.edu>> wrote:
Responses are inline;
On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 6:38 PM Fernando Frediani
mailto:fhfredi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
There are two points to analyze in this proposal:
- Any returned, reclaimed or revoked addresses that belong
Responses are inline;
On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 6:38 PM Fernando Frediani
wrote:
> 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
Agreed. Support this for the time being.
--
*Michael B. Williams*
Glexia, Inc. - An IT Company
USA Direct: +1 978 477 6797
USA Toll Free: +1 800 675 0297 x101
AUS Direct: +61 3 8594 2265
AUS Toll Free: +61 1800 931 724 x101
Fax: +1.815-301-5570
Support. At some future point it may make sense to
eliminate (or reduce the size of) the reserved pools,
but until we have consensus as to how to right-size
those pools, they should have priority to top them
off.
___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this
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
Support. In the last sentence I would remove the words “which is” for clarity.
Scott
> On Dec 24, 2019, at 4:42 AM, ARIN wrote:
>
>
> On 19 December 2019, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted "ARIN-prop-281:
> Reserved Pool Replenishment" as a Draft Policy.
>
> Draft Policy ARIN-2019-21
19 matches
Mail list logo
