On Aug 16, 2010, at 1:44 AM, William Herrin wrote:
...
The retort you want to make is that ARIN just wouldn't do that. That's
not the kind of people they are. Fine. So update the LRSA so it
doesn't carefully and pervasively establish ARIN's legal right to
behave that way.
Bill -
Divide
On Aug 15, 2010, at 11:31 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
Would the policy process be an appropriate venue for a proposition to
change the ARIN mission, restricting it's activities exclusively to
registration services while requiring a reduction in fees and budget?
Jeffrey -
Some historical
John,
That was just the elevator speech, I wouldn't go off and write an
entire proposal without a better understanding on how the community at
large feels about the issue and exactly where the boundary would be
drawn. My intent was not primarily cost, the registration fees are
indeed low. I was
The retort you want to make is that ARIN just wouldn't do that. That's
not the kind of people they are. Fine. So update the LRSA so it
doesn't carefully and pervasively establish ARIN's legal right to
behave that way.
John/Steve,
Bill makes a reasonable point here. Is there a way to, in
On Aug 16, 2010, at 8:04 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
John/Steve,
Just me (we don't pay Steve to read Nanog, although I do
forward him legalistic emails depending on content :-)
Bill makes a reasonable point here. Is there a way to, in the next round of
LRSA mods, include something to the effect
Randy Bush wrote:
and why in hell would i trust these organizations with any control of
my routing via rpki certification? they have always said thay would
never be involved in routing, but if they control the certification
chain, they have a direct stranglehold they can use to extort fees.
Randy Bush wrote:
Yet most of the bad ideas in the past 15 years have actually come from
the IETF (TLA's, no end site multihoming, RA religion), some of which
have actually been fixed by the RIR's.
no, they were fixed within the ietf. that's my blood you are taking
about, and i know where
Joe -
Excellent question, and one which I know is getting
some public policy attention. There is a session at
upcoming Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in
Vilnius
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/component/chronocontact/?chronoformname=WSProposals2010Viewwspid=158
specifically
-Original Message-
From: Randy Bush [mailto:ra...@psg.com]
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 10:13 PM
To: Kevin Loch
Cc: North American Network Operators Group
Subject: Re: Lightly used IP addresses
the fracking rirs, in the name of marla and and lee, actually went to
the ietf last
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 09:57:51 EDT, Joe Maimon said:
Kind of interesting to consider how a successful implementation of RPKI
might change the rules of this game we all play in. I tried talking
about that at ARIN in Toronto, not certain I was clear enough.
I'm not at all convinced this would
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010, Frank Bulk wrote:
This week I was told by my sales person at Red Condor that I'm the only one
of his customers that is asking for IPv6. He sounded annoyed and it seemed
like he was trying to make me feel bad for being the only oddball pushing
the IPv6 feature requirement.
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 09:57:51 EDT, Joe Maimon said:
Kind of interesting to consider how a successful implementation of RPKI
might change the rules of this game we all play in. I tried talking
about that at ARIN in Toronto, not certain I was clear enough.
I'm
On 16/08/10 09:47 -0700, John Springer wrote:
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010, Frank Bulk wrote:
This week I was told by my sales person at Red Condor that I'm the only one
of his customers that is asking for IPv6. He sounded annoyed and it seemed
like he was trying to make me feel bad for being the only
and, to continue the red herring with jc, i bet you 500 yen that arin
paid their travel expenses to go to maastricht nl to do this stupid
thing.
You lose your bet.
then owe you 500Y. paypal?
randy
Kind of interesting to consider how a successful implementation of
RPKI might change the rules of this game we all play in. I tried
talking about that at ARIN in Toronto, not certain I was clear
enough.
first, let's remember that the rpki is a distributed database which has
a number of
On 16/08/2010 21:46, Randy Bush wrote:
it is stopping fat fingers such as pk/youtube, 7007, and the every day
accidental mis-announcements of others' prefixes.
I am dying to hear the explanation of why the people who didn't bother
with irrdb filters are going to latch on en-masse to rpki
In message 4c69cb8d.4000...@foobar.org, Nick Hilliard writes:
On 16/08/2010 21:46, Randy Bush wrote:
it is stopping fat fingers such as pk/youtube, 7007, and the every day
accidental mis-announcements of others' prefixes.
I am dying to hear the explanation of why the people who didn't
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010, Chris Grundemann wrote:
I highly encourage everyone who has an opinion on Internet numbering
policy to do the same.
The same goes for IETF and standards, there one doesn't have to go to
meetings at all since most work is being done on/via mailing lists openly.
--
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 22:24, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
Psst.. Hey.. buddy. Over here... wanna score some gen-yoo-ine Rolex integers,
cheap?
Right, because there is no reason to care about the uniqueness of
integers used on the Internet... :/
~Chris
On Aug 15, 2010, at 1:20 AM, David Conrad wrote:
It has been depressing to watch participants in ARIN (in particular) suggest
all will be well if people would just sign away their rights via an LRSA,
...
Actually, you've got it backwards. The Legacy RSA provides specific
contractual rights
Actually, you've got it backwards. The Legacy RSA provides specific
contractual rights which take precedence over present policy or any
policy that might be made which would otherwise limit such rights:
gosh, i must have completely misread section nine
as we say in our family, i smell cows.
On Aug 15, 2010, at 6:06 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
Actually, you've got it backwards. The Legacy RSA provides specific
contractual rights which take precedence over present policy or any
policy that might be made which would otherwise limit such rights:
gosh, i must have completely misread
gosh, i must have completely misread section nine
Seeking contractual rights contrary to IETF RFCs 2008 and 2150?
legacy space predates those, and they are not contracts.
randy
gosh, i must have completely misread section nine
Seeking contractual rights contrary to IETF RFCs 2008 and 2150?
oh, and if you feel that you have those rights by other means than the
lrsa, then why is section nine in the lrsa. just remove it. and then
maybe more than a few percent of the
On Aug 15, 2010, at 6:21 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
gosh, i must have completely misread section nine
Seeking contractual rights contrary to IETF RFCs 2008 and 2150?
oh, and if you feel that you have those rights by other means than the
lrsa, then why is section nine in the lrsa. just remove
gosh, i must have completely misread section nine
Seeking contractual rights contrary to IETF RFCs 2008 and 2150?
oh, and if you feel that you have those rights by other means than the
lrsa, then why is section nine in the lrsa. just remove it.
Easy to do, you can either:
1) Change the
and, may i remind you, that the actual point was
On Aug 15, 2010, at 1:20 AM, David Conrad wrote:
It has been depressing to watch participants in ARIN (in particular)
suggest all will be well if people would just sign away their rights
via an LRSA,
Actually, you've got it backwards. The
On Aug 15, 2010, at 7:28 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
oh. was section nine of the lrsa done by the policy process?
No, although it's been presented at multiple Public Policy and Member
meetings, and has enjoying extensive discussion on the mailing lists.
(It's been extensively revised based on the
oh. was section nine of the lrsa done by the policy process?
No
so, if we think it should be changed we should go through a process
which was not used to put it in place. can you even say level playing
field?
Section 9 is present in the LRSA because it matches the RSA (so that
all address
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 12:23 AM, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote:
https://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/annual_rprt.html
In
between meetings, this topic is probably best suited for the arin-discuss
mailing
list as opposed to the nanog list.
John,
Is arin-discuss still a closed
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 15, 2010, at 2:38 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010, Chris Grundemann wrote:
I highly encourage everyone who has an opinion on Internet numbering policy
to do the same.
The same goes for IETF and standards, there one doesn't
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 15, 2010, at 8:54 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
oh. was section nine of the lrsa done by the policy process?
No
so, if we think it should be changed we should go through a process
which was not used to put it in place. can you even say level playing
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 15, 2010, at 11:14 AM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 12:23 AM, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote:
https://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/annual_rprt.html
In
between meetings, this topic is probably best suited for the arin-discuss
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
ARIN fees and budget are a member concern, not a public concern.
Oh really? The money ARIN spends managing the public's IP addresses
(and how it collects that money and the privileges conferred on the
folks from whom it's
In other words, if the ARIN board adopts a policy that legacy
registrants must install some of their addresses on a router on the
moon (or perhaps some requirement that's a little less extreme) then
failing to is cause for terminating the contract (14.b). Which revokes
the IP addresses
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 11:44:18AM -0400, Owen DeLong wrote:
You and Randy operate from the assumption that these less certain
rights somehow exist at all. I believe them to be fictitious in
nature and contrary to the intent of number stewardship all the way
back to Postel's original
On Aug 15, 2010, William Herrin wrote:
Please: don't ask folks to take discussions of public concern to a closed
forum.
...
ARIN makes only two promises about the application of existing and new
ARIN policies to LRSA signatories: ARIN will take no action to reduce
the services provided for
Also, your emphasis above (_that are not currently being utilized_),
pointed our we need to clarify that it should include all resources,
including those not currently being utilized, i.e. the phrase wasn't
intended to exclude *utilized* resources from ARIN will take no action
clause.
On Aug 15, 2010, at 2:32 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
Also, your emphasis above (_that are not currently being utilized_),
pointed our we need to clarify that it should include all resources,
including those not currently being utilized, i.e. the phrase wasn't
intended to exclude *utilized*
john,
the bottom line is, changes you like and can justify to yourself with
lots of glib words can be made without process. changes you don't like
have to go through the policy gauntlet.
randy
On Aug 15, 2010, at 11:14 AM, William Herrin wrote:
Unfortunately, the LRSA contains another price which I personally
consider too high: voluntary termination revokes the IP addresses
instead of restoring the pre-contract status quo. Without that
balancing check to the contract, I think a
On Aug 15, 2010, at 2:55 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
the bottom line is, changes you like and can justify to yourself with
lots of glib words can be made without process.
changes you don't like have to go through the policy gauntlet.
Changes to the ARIN's operations are within my authority; I
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 11:44:18 EDT, Owen DeLong said:
You and Randy operate from the assumption that these less certain rights
somehow exist at all. I believe them to be fictitious in nature and
contrary to the intent of number stewardship all the way back to
Postel's original notebook. Postel
the bottom line is, changes you like and can justify to yourself with
lots of glib words can be made without process. changes you don't
like have to go through the policy gauntlet.
...
Changes to ARIN's fees, services, and agreements are done after
consultation to the ARIN Board, and often
used IP addresses
On Aug 15, 2010, at 6:21 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
gosh, i must have completely misread section nine
Seeking contractual rights contrary to IETF RFCs 2008 and 2150?
oh, and if you feel that you have those rights by other means than the
lrsa, then why is section nine
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010, Randy Bush wrote:
when the registry work was re-competed and taken from sri to netsol (i
think it was called that at the time), rick adams put in a no cost
bid to do it all with automated scripts. hindsight tells me we should
have supported that much more strongly.
I
On 8/13/2010 19:55, Randy Bush wrote:
when the registry work was re-competed and taken from sri to netsol (i
think it was called that at the time), rick adams [0] put in a no cost
bid to do it all with automated scripts. hindsight tells me we should
have supported that much more strongly.
On 8/15/10 6:25 PM, Tony Finch wrote:
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010, Randy Bush wrote:
when the registry work was re-competed and taken from sri to netsol (i
think it was called that at the time), rick adams put in a no cost
when we (sri) lost the defense data network nic contract in may '91,
disa
On Aug 15, 2010, at 9:20 AM, William Herrin wrote:
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
ARIN fees and budget are a member concern, not a public concern.
Oh really? The money ARIN spends managing the public's IP addresses
(and how it collects that money and
On Aug 15, 2010, at 11:08 AM, Brett Frankenberger wrote:
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 11:44:18AM -0400, Owen DeLong wrote:
You and Randy operate from the assumption that these less certain
rights somehow exist at all. I believe them to be fictitious in
nature and contrary to the intent of
All (and especially Mr. Curran),
Would the policy process be an appropriate venue for a proposition to
change the ARIN mission, restricting it's activities exclusively to
registration services while requiring a reduction in fees and budget?
Best regards, Jeff
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 7:35 AM,
On Aug 15, 2010, at 12:51 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 11:44:18 EDT, Owen DeLong said:
You and Randy operate from the assumption that these less certain rights
somehow exist at all. I believe them to be fictitious in nature and
contrary to the intent of number
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 3:03 PM, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote:
The last round of improvements to the LRSA (version 2.0) added several
circumstances that result in pre-contract status quo, and additional
ones could be added if the community wants such and the Board concurs.
John,
I
[attribution removed, as I lost track of who said what]
Do you now. Unfortunately, the plain language of the LRSA does not
respect your belief.
ARIN makes only two promises about the application of existing and new
ARIN policies to LRSA signatories: ARIN will take no action to reduce
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 11:05 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Aug 15, 2010, at 9:20 AM, William Herrin wrote:
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
ARIN fees and budget are a member concern, not a public concern.
I seem to recall that attitude was how
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 12:00 AM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
And in complete fairness - why should folks who received vast tracts
of addresses for little or no cost under a justified-need regime now
have free reign to monetize their sale?
All of the real estate in my part of New York
Watching people snark on mailing lists is occasionally entertaining. Watching
them snark on the wrong mailing lists is usually less entertaining. Watching
them snark on the wrong mailing list for 100+ posts when the things they are
snarking about were voted on by themselves is getting a
On Aug 13, 2010, at 8:01 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
Yet most of the bad ideas in the past 15 years have actually come from
the IETF (TLA's, no end site multihoming, RA religion), some of which
have actually been fixed by the RIR's.
no, they were fixed within the ietf. that's my blood you are
On Aug 13, 2010, at 9:12 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
John et al,
I have read many of your articles about the need to migrate to IPv6
and how failure to do so will impact business continuity sometime in
the next 1 - 3 years. I've pressed our vendors to support IPv6 (note:
keep in mind we're a
On Aug 13, 2010, at 9:33 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
Funny!
On one hand people talk about ARIN providing IP allocation at nearly zero
cost and on the other hand talking that ARIN goes after companies that use
their allocation for abuse (which has a non trivial cost and potential
Convincingly said here on an ISP mailing list. But what about the
folks who were denied address assignments by ARIN policies over the
last 15 years? Denied them based on the fiction that ISPs didn't own
IP addresses, that they were merely holding the addresses in trust for
the public they serve.
It was 40 acres and a mule - FYI
On 8/14/10 11:22 AM, John R. Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
Convincingly said here on an ISP mailing list. But what about the
folks who were denied address assignments by ARIN policies over the
last 15 years? Denied them based on the fiction that ISPs didn't
On Aug 14, 2010, at 8:05, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Aug 13, 2010, at 8:01 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
The lack of end-site multihoming (more specifically the lack of PI for
end-sites) was created by the IETF and resolved by the RIRs.
The beginning of resolving this was ARIN proposal
On Aug 14, 2010, at 8:47 AM, Bret Clark wrote:
On 08/14/2010 11:27 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I was at a trade show several months back. I watched a series of people
walk up to a vendor and each, in turn, asked about IPv6 support. The
vendor told each, in turn, You're the only one asking for it.
On 08/14/2010 13:27 EDT, Jimi Thompson wrote:
It was 40 acres and a mule - FYI
That was Civil War, for freed slaves. Here in NY, war of independence
veterans were given at least 100 acres each.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_New_York_Military_Tract
On Aug 14, 2010, at 10:27, Jimi Thompson jimi.thomp...@gmail.com wrote:
It was 40 acres and a mule - FYI
No 40 acres was 1/4 of 1/4 of a section. That's 's Sherman's field order (1865)
not the homestead act (which was 160). Or the circa 1790 activity referred to
in this thread.
Joel's
I think you mistake my meaning. I don't regard RA and SLAAC as a problem. I
regard their limited capabilities as a minor issue. I regard the IETF religion
that insists on preventing DHCPv6 from having a complete set of capabilities
for some form of RA protectionism to be the largest problem.
Bill,
On Aug 14, 2010, at 8:51 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
In the formal ARIN context, there is a distiction between abuse and
fraud.
abuse:: https://www.arin.net/abuse.html
This is a FAQ for folks who are accusing ARIN of abuse of network. With the
possible
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 12:32:50PM -0700, David Conrad wrote:
Bill,
On Aug 14, 2010, at 8:51 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
In the formal ARIN context, there is a distiction between abuse and
fraud.
abuse:: https://www.arin.net/abuse.html
This is a FAQ for folks
40 Acres and a Mule were promised to every slave freed in the south by
General Grant. It was later rescinded. 600 acres was promised to
non-landowning general militia soldiers after the Revolutionary war.
You're only off by ~100 years.
Andrew
On 8/14/2010 1:27 PM, Jimi Thompson wrote:
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 15:25, Ken Chase k...@sizone.org wrote:
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 05:00:04PM -0400, Jared Mauch said:
I know of several large providers that would stop routing such rogue
space.
Really? They'd take a seriously delinquent (and we're only talking about non
payment after
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 21:32, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
when the 'community' is defined as those policy wannabes who do the
flying, take the cruise junkets, ... this is a self-perpetuating
steaming load that is not gonna change.
Yes, those definitions create a steaming load.
But why is
for the embarrassing wannabe example of the month, marla and lee [0] at
the last ietf is just such a shining example. at the mic, they state
are from the arin ac and board, like it was their day job and they were
speaking fo rarin ploicy. and they propose to roll back a decade of
progress
First, in this thread we are not talking about folks who have not paid
ARIN their dues, we are talking about folks who sell addresses
despite not being authorized to do so by ARIN - aka abuse/fraud.
this is less clear-cut than you seem to think it is. but i suspect we
will see it in court
, August 13, 2010 2:13 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Lightly used IP addresses
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 06:49:35PM +, Nathan Eisenberg said:
Is this upstream going to cut that customer off and
lose the revenue, just to satisfy ARIN's bleating?
Isn't this a little bit like an SSL
,
it's just been pushed back several quarters.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010 10:27 AM
To: Jeffrey Lyon
Cc: John Curran; nanog@nanog.org; Ken Chase
Subject: Re: Lightly used IP addresses
On Aug 13, 2010, at 9:12 PM
A possible stick for ARIN could be that any AS that advertises space
for B and any network that uses that rogue AS would not receive
resource requests/changes from ARIN. Perhaps too strong of a stick?
maybe you should not be searching for a stick.
.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010 10:27 AM
To: Jeffrey Lyon
Cc: John Curran; nanog@nanog.org; Ken Chase
Subject: Re: Lightly used IP addresses
On Aug 13, 2010, at 9:12 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
John et al,
I have
Randy Bush wrote:
John - you do not get it...
vadim, i assure you curran gets it. he has been around as long as you
and i. the problem is that he has become a fiduciary of an organization
which sees its survival and growth as its principal goal, free business
class travel for wannabe
On Aug 14, 2010, at 11:30 PM, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
Question: Why does it cost $11 million or more per year (going to some
$22 million per year after 2013) to run a couple of databases that are
Internet-accessible?
Patrick - If this is a reference to ARIN, the budget is approximately
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 17:03:59 MDT, Chris Grundemann said:
First, in this thread we are not talking about folks who have not paid
ARIN their dues, we are talking about folks who sell addresses
despite not being authorized to do so by ARIN - aka abuse/fraud.
Psst.. Hey.. buddy. Over here... wanna
On 08/14/2010 21:24, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 17:03:59 MDT, Chris Grundemann said:
First, in this thread we are not talking about folks who have not paid
ARIN their dues, we are talking about folks who sell addresses
despite not being authorized to do so by ARIN - aka
Owen,
On Aug 14, 2010, at 8:40 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Let's clarify the definition of abuse in this context. We are not talking
about people who use their IPs to abuse the network. We are talking about
resource recipients who use their allocations or assignments in contravention
to the
At the risk of getting called out for posting possibly operationally
significant stuff in the middle of a massive retrospective about
WCOM's acquisitions, here's a circleid post from a couple days ago
from John Curran at ARIN.
http://www.circleid.com/posts/psst_interested_in_some_lightly_used_ip_addresses/
Discuss. :-)
I don't entirely understand the process. Here's the flow chart as far
as I've figured it out:
1. A sells a /20 of IPv4 space to B for, say, $5,000
2. A tells ARIN to transfer the chunk to B
3.
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:36 PM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
I don't entirely understand the process. Here's the flow chart as far
as I've figured it out:
1. A sells a /20 of IPv4 space to B for, say, $5,000
2. A tells ARIN to transfer the chunk to B
3. ARIN says no, B hasn't
On Aug 13, 2010, at 10:36 AM, John Levine wrote:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/psst_interested_in_some_lightly_used_ip_addresses/
Discuss. :-)
I don't entirely understand the process. Here's the flow chart as far
as I've figured it out:
1. A sells a /20 of IPv4 space to B for, say,
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 10:44:12AM -0700, Owen DeLong said:
6. ARIN receives a fraud/abuse complaint that A's space is being used by B.
7. ARIN discovers that A is no longer using the space in accordance with
their RSA
8. ARIN reclaims the space and A and B are left to figure out who
9. I could point out so many cases of justification abuse or
outright fraudulent justification and I bet nothing would actually
transpire.
My two cents.
Jeff
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 10:14 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Aug 13, 2010, at 10:36 AM, John Levine wrote:
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
6. ARIN receives a fraud/abuse complaint that A's space is being used
by B.
7. ARIN discovers that A is no longer using the space in accordance
with their RSA
8. ARIN reclaims the space and A and B are left
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 10:44:12AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Aug 13, 2010, at 10:36 AM, John Levine wrote:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/psst_interested_in_some_lightly_used_ip_addresses/
Discuss. :-)
I don't entirely understand the process. Here's the flow chart as far
as
Jeff,
Go for it. I've always wondered what ARIN had between it's legs.
Andrew
On 8/13/2010 1:53 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
9. I could point out so many cases of justification abuse or
outright fraudulent justification and I bet nothing would actually
transpire.
My two cents.
Jeff
On Fri,
how does ARIN or whomever deal with similar situations where someone is
advertising un-allocated, un-assigned by ARIN IP space in NA? do they have a
deal/agreement with the 'backbone' providers?
-g
6.ARIN receives a fraud/abuse complaint that A's space is being used by B.
7.
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 10:23:56PM +0430, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
9. I could point out so many cases of justification abuse or
outright fraudulent justification and I bet nothing would actually
transpire.
My two cents.
Jeff
if you have data on abuse, please use the ARIN abuse
On Aug 13, 2010, at 10:36 AM, John Levine wrote:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/psst_interested_in_some_lightly_used_ip_addres
ses/
Discuss. :-)
I don't entirely understand the process. Here's the flow chart as far
as I've figured it out:
1. A sells a /20 of IPv4 space to B for, say,
On 8/13/10 2:06 PM, Aaron Wendel wrote:
You know I love you Owen. :)
9. A sues ARIN for tortuous contract interference.
10. B sues ARIN for same.
11. C and D join the law suit.
12. Judges step in.
13. ARIN gets mired in lawsuit after lawsuit
14. Dogs and cats start living together
I don't entirely understand the process. Here's the flow chart as far
as I've figured it out:
1. A sells a /20 of IPv4 space to B for, say, $5,000
2. A tells ARIN to transfer the chunk to B
3. ARIN says no, B hasn't shown that they need it
4. A and B say screw it, and B announces the
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 02:15:51PM -0400, John R. Levine said:
I don't entirely understand the process. Here's the flow chart as far
as I've figured it out:
1. A sells a /20 of IPv4 space to B for, say, $5,000
2. A tells ARIN to transfer the chunk to B
3. ARIN says no, B
Is this upstream going to cut that customer off and
lose the revenue, just to satisfy ARIN's bleating?
Isn't this a little bit like an SSL daemon? One which refuses to process a
revocation list on the basis of the function of the certificate is useless.
The revocation list only has
On Aug 13, 2010, at 2:49 PM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
Is this upstream going to cut that customer off and
lose the revenue, just to satisfy ARIN's bleating?
Isn't this a little bit like an SSL daemon? One which refuses to process a
revocation list on the basis of the function of the
1 - 100 of 163 matches
Mail list logo
