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

I would think that ARIN staff would already apply a "show me tangible evidence requirement" to a 50% within a year requirement. My understanding is that that is current ARIN staff practice for new organizations requires them to show evidence they will actually use the IPv4 addresses on an oper

[arin-ppml] 2-byte ASN policy

Hello, I am starting a new thread in PPML, as a follow up to the ARIN suggestion and consultation which recently started regarding creating a 2-byte ASN waiting list. The original suggestion is here: https://www.arin.net/participate/acsp/suggestions/2016-04.html ARIN opened a consultation o

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

Hello, The AC would appreciate your feedback on this new draft policy. This draft grew out of a conversation at the San Diego NANOG meeting where it was noted that current policy allows the transfer of IPv4 addresses which are issued to critical infrastructure or as IPv6 transition space. It wa

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN 2-Byte ASN inventory and issuance

Do other members of the ARIN community believe that the current policy and operational practice is sufficient for now, or are there policy changes needed at this time? Thanks, Andrew On 4/7/2016 12:24 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote: Thanks, John. It sounds to me like ARIN is already doing the righ

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

Hello, As part of the discussions at ARIN 37 the community considered updates to the proposed draft policy that would allow organizations to transfer, within ARIN, reserved pool resources provided that they met the criteria to obtain a block from a reserved pool. Based upon this feedback we are p

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

t; > to show it has been re-written, post the new text there > and a pointer to the now archived older revision? > > (e.g. https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2015_9.html) > > Thanks, > > __Jason > > > > On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Andrew Dul <mailto:an

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

the text, which as a policy shepherd would generally make the case toward support of the changes. Andrew On 5/16/2016 11:07 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: Overall, I do not think that the proposed changes have the support of the community and I would advocate leaving the policy as written.

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

As the primary author of this draft policy, I respectfully disagree with my AC colleague. Now that the free pool has been depleted, it is time to look toward what future IPv4 (primarily transfer) policy should do. While this policy looks complicated, its intention is to create a very simple tran

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

Hi Brett, On 6/22/2016 11:26 AM, Brett Frankenberger wrote: > On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 11:15:58AM -0500, Scott Leibrand wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Mike Burns wrote: >> >>> Hi Andrew, >>> >>> I have a couple of questions about the policy proposal. >>> >>> On Section 8.5.2 Operatio

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

On 6/22/2016 7:54 PM, Brett Frankenberger wrote: > >> We are certainly open to other language if you would like to suggest >> something, to clarify our intent. > 8.5.4. Initial block > > Organizations without direct assignments or allocations from ARIN > qualify for transfe

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM

I support this policy to cleanup the IPv6 policy and remove references to the HD-ratio which is no longer used in this region to assign or allocate IPv6 addresses. Andrew On 7/26/2016 6:21 AM, ARIN wrote: > > > ## > > Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM > > Date: 26 Jul

Re: [arin-ppml] Upcoming Public Policy Discussions

With my community member and author hats on. And in attempt to start this conversation before the formal meeting starts on Thursday. > On Oct 15, 2016, at 22:16, Alexander, Daniel > wrote: > > > > Related proposals: > > ARIN 2015-7 Simplified Requirements for Demonstrated Need for IPv4 Tra

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2016-7 -- Integrate community networks into Existing ISP Policy

It would be especially helpful for the AC if those who operate community networks could review the proposed draft policy and see if the problem statement highlights an issue for operators and if the proposed text solves this problem. Thanks, Andrew On 12/15/2016 3:30 PM, Kevin Blumberg wrote: >

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

There has been some good discussion about this draft. At this time, it seems like perhaps there is disagreement within the community on the purpose and use of reassignment records. As we have gone past IPv4 run-out, perhaps now is the time to consider if reassignment records provide the same lev

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN Draft Policy 2017-1: Clarify Slow Start for Transfers proposed updates

The policy shepherds have seen limited support for this draft and noted this at its last full AC meeting. Furthermore, we believe that through the discussion of this draft this policy change may not be necessary as ARIN's operational practice already permits organizations to use a data based

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-7: Retire Obsolete Section 4 From the NRPM

If there is general community support for pruning back section 4 now that run-out has happened and section 8 contains the transfer requirements. I can pull out my previous drafts and revise and present those as alternatives to this specific draft text. Andrew On 7/17/2017 12:32 PM, Chris Woodfie

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

Chris, I'd agree that the wording around the requirements that the organization have volunteers fulfill a "large" or "predominant" role could be an area of improvement in the draft text. Do others feel that this part of the definition could be improved too? If so what requirements were would

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

Hello all, We will be discussing this draft proposal at the upcoming ARIN meeting in San Jose. If you have comments on the updated draft posted below, we'd certainly like to hear from you so we can help shape the conversation in person. We have seen some support for this updated draft, but not

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

ritical functions may be > handled by paid staff, implies that volunteers shouldn't handle Critical > functions or that paid staff shouldn't handle menial work? Should we substitute "Critical" with "Some"? > > > > > -Original Message- &

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

The current text uses the terms "volunteer group, not-for-profit, non-profit, charitable organization, or educational institution" My reading of this is that accreditation isn't a requirement.  The text could be rewritten to remove educational institutions, but some of the community networks one m

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-9: Clarification of Initial Block Size for IPv4 ISP Transfers

It sounds like our recollections of what we intended for ISP initial allocations have diverged. I will admit when I drafted the problem statement I did not go back through email to see if there was anything about this issue. Assuming we harmonize the problem statement, would you prefer the /24 a

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-9: Clarification of Initial Block Size for IPv4 ISP Transfers

/2017 9:19 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote: > I’d be ok with a /21, but there’s nothing magical about that size in a > post-exhaustion world. I’d rather base a loosening on actual transfer > statistics, and consider doing so for both allocations and assignments.  > > Scott > > On Nov 2

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-9: Clarification of Initial Block Size for IPv4 ISP Transfers

ents. > > David  > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Dec 4, 2017, at 4:30 PM, Andrew Dul <mailto:andrew@quark.net>> wrote: > >> Scott,  how would you feel about this proposed updated problem >> statement which focuses on the current issue rather than th

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-9: Clarification of Initial Block Size for IPv4 ISP Transfers

s an initial /21 for Section 8 transfers when they first apply and are approved under section 4.  If an organization applies under section 8 first they are initially qualified for a /24, larger allocations require additional documentation as noted in 8.5.5. On 12/4/2017 1:30 PM, Andrew Dul wrote:

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2017-9: Clarification of Initial Block Size for IPv4 ISP Transfers

Notes inline On 2/12/2018 10:31 AM, David Farmer wrote: > I need more input from the community on this one.  Unless you are one > of the two people who has responded already, please take time to > respond to the following questions. > > Thank you. > > On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 3:18 PM, David Farmer

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

I'd like to suggest that the proposed policy text be shorted and clarified.  I don't believe all the examples are necessary in the definition section. Add to the end of NRPM Section 2.5 - https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#two5 Current draft text: The fact that a unique address or even a uniq

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

I support this policy to remove this reallocation requirement from the NRPM. Andrew > > > > > Draft Policy ARIN-2018-3: Remove Reallocation Requirements for Residential > Market Assignments > > Problem Statement: > > Current number policy requires some organizations to create reallocatio

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

The AC has recently been discussing this draft policy and noted that we have not heard from the community since this new text has been posted.  We would like to hear from you on if we should move this policy to recommended. I believe the new text fixes the discrepancy, for initial ISP alloca

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

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 the Staff Implementation memo. What do others think of this approach? Andrew === Policy statement: Insert one new section into NRPM 3: 3.7 POC Validation Upon R

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2018-6: Clarify Reassignment Requirements in 4.2.3.7.1

The intent of this draft policy is not to make lines 7-12 of the simple reassignment optional.  The intent is to clarify to the community that a detailed reassignment record is not required for most reassignments. Andrew On 1/25/2019 12:00 PM, Roberts, Orin wrote: Please clarify. This propo

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-2: Waiting List Block Size Restriction

The draft policy does not specifically state what happens.  I think the best would be to give an organization currently on the list the option of adjusting their minimum size to the new maximum, if their current minimum is less than the new maximum.  We could include this in the implementation note

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2018-5: Disallow Third-party Organization Record Creation

The ARIN advisory council will be considering this draft policy at its upcoming teleconference later this week. The AC would appreciate your statement of support (or lack of thereof) for this updated draft to help make a determination if this draft policy is strongly supported by the community

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2018-5: Disallow Third-party Organization Record Creation

On 4/2/2019 4:17 PM, Jo Rhett wrote: On Apr 1, 2019, at 4:45 PM, Owen DeLong > wrote: as it occurs to me that the following dilemma comes into play: I, as a contractor, often create ORG records for (and at the request of) my clients. I’m not their ISP and I’m not creati

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

You are correct, this policy change only affects detailed-reassignments and reallocations.  Simple-reassignments do not have POC records associated with them. Andrew On 4/24/2019 10:18 AM, Andrew Bagrin wrote: > I'm sorry if I missed this somewhere, but this does not affect simple > reassignment

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

Hello, I'd like to bring your attention to another issue that may have been lost in the flurry of other emails.  We are currently in a 14 day feedback period for the AC's response to the Board's suspension of the wait-list.   Please note the following updated text for the wait-list.  Your comments

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

As the draft is written, I would assume it applies to all blocks issued under 4.1.8.2 because the draft policy doesn't state otherwise.  We certainly could craft the policy to only apply going forward or it could also be applicable to all wait-list blocks.  If members of the community have a prefe

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

I support the AC's recommendation as written. While this policy will limit the organizations that are eligible to receive a block, I believe it strikes the right balance.  The smaller block size (/22) is generally in line with the final block size allocations of the other RIRs. Furthermore,

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

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-list policy in light of those changes. In the AC's recommendation, a 60 month transfer restriction was placed on any block received f

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

your support on the list. Thank you, Andrew On 7/8/2019 10:56 AM, 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-list policy in light of t

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

On 11/6/2019 11:21 AM, John Santos wrote: > On 11/6/2019 12:57 PM, ARIN wrote: > >> This policy attempts to address these issues, by raising the minimum >> size to a /24 and limits total amount an organization can receive to >> a /21. It also removes the requirement for return and renumber, since >

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

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 forward...  I'm proposing a couple of questions to see if we can find middle ground here to update the text of t

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

I would say as a continuing ARIN member they are responsible for keeping up their POC and abuse records just like any other member. Andrew 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

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

David, Thanks for your comments.   On 3/26/2020 4:08 PM, David Farmer wrote: > I support this policy as written.  > > However, I recommend a minor editorial change and a small change to > the policy; > > 1. I would prefer to not use "smaller" or "less" when referring to /24 > or longer prefixes, s

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

John, Could you provide the community with a rough magnitude of this issue?  Approximately how many of these 3x-small ISP organizations have come to ARIN and requested IPv6?  How many accepted the block and how many refused because of the fee issue?  How many 3x-small ISP organizations does ARIN

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

> the request? >>> >>> >>>> On 4/15/2020 7:18 PM, John Sweeting wrote: >>>> Hi Andrew, >>>> >>>> The numbers around this are: >>>> >>>> 320 3x small RSPs >>>> 30 have applied and been appr

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

On 4/18/2020 9:40 AM, hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote: I look at it this way: An ISP with only a /24 of IPv4 space only has 254 addresses to hand out to its customers.  If they receive a /40 of IPv6 space, they can assign up to 256 /48's to its customers, almost an exact match. Someone with so

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

I do not support the reintroduction of organizations onto the wait-list who were removed due to having existing address holdings larger than a /20.  Being on the wait-list was never a guarantee that you would receive space.  The AC had to balance the various elements of block size and organizat

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2020-5: Clarify and Update Requirements for Allocations to Downstream Customers

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5533 As far as I know this concept wasn't really adopted or embraced by network operators. Andrew On 7/16/2020 8:11 PM, hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote: > Has there actually been any effort toward another routing method in > IPv6 other than BGP? > > In theory, IPv6 sh

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

I do not support the re-adding of organizations with any size of IPv4 holdings back to the wait-list. Speaking only for myself, Andrew On 8/18/2020 8:39 AM, Hayee Bokhari wrote:  Seems like a plan, Go for it. Regards Hayee Bokhari 514-341-1579 Ex 212 800-427-6012 Ex 212 bokh...@cronomagi

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

The current draft policy text disallows returns to lower than a /36, so I would say that organization which took a /36 would not be permitted to go down to a /40. "Partial returns of any IPv6 allocation that results in less than a /36 of holding are not permitted regardless of the ISP’s current or

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

s is in place in order to >>>> meet the stated goal of this proposal being revenue-neutral for >>>> ARIN? If so, it would be great to clarify so that community members >>>> can make a more informed evaluation as to whether or not to support >>>> the cla

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

On 10/12/2020 1:29 PM, sc...@solarnetone.org wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > On Mon, 12 Oct 2020, Andrew Dul wrote: > >> The partial returns language is also intended to promote best practices >> for IPv6 addressing, that is giving big blocks to allow ISPs to assign >> /48s t

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

On 10/12/2020 2:30 PM, sc...@solarnetone.org wrote: > Andrew, > > On Mon, 12 Oct 2020, Andrew Dul wrote: > >> On 10/12/2020 1:29 PM, sc...@solarnetone.org wrote: >>> Hi Andrew, >>> >>> On Mon, 12 Oct 2020, Andrew Dul wrote: >>> >>>

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

>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -C >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Oct 12, 2020, at 11:06 AM, sc...@solarnetone.org wrote: >>>>>>>>>

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

On 10/12/2020 4:43 PM, sc...@solarnetone.org wrote: > Hi Andrew, > >>> This applies, however, only to those who do not subscribe to the >>> Registration Services Plan, if I understand correctly, as subscribing >>> to said plan converts one from End User to ISP automatically.  >>> Needless to say, t

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

This draft policy while allowing 26 organizations which have up /18 in holdings to obtain a /22 under this policy, blocks 11 organizations which had more than a /18 and thus are not eligible to obtain a /22 even though they waited in line too.   By the logic below this policy isn't fair to these 11

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2020-6: Allowance for IPv4 Allocation “Swap” Transactions via 8.3 Specified Transfers and 8.4 Inter-RIR Transfers

I believe swaps should not be permitted using wait-list space.  I do not support this draft when using wait-list space for a swap. I could support the draft if the ability to use wait-list space for the swap is removed. Speaking only for myself, Andrew On 12/15/2020 11:38 AM, Owen DeLong wro

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2020-11: Add Textual Description for the Number Resource Hierarchy Image in Section 2

This draft is intended to be moved out of draft policy as an editorial update. The text has been updated based upon suggestions on PPML and in the AC.  We will quickly present an update on this next week at the meeting and then I intend to move this forward as an editorial update unless there

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2021-3: Private AS Number and Unique Routing Policy Clarifications

Based upon the input we have received from ARIN staff it seems that additional clarity is desired in section 5 for ASN assignments. I am not convinced however that the current draft text is the best way to fix the issues raised so far.  I don't have specific test suggestions at this point but

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2021-3: Private AS Number and Unique Routing Policy Clarifications

ndrew: How does a public 32 bit ASN reduce the need to use a private ASN? Warm regards, -M< On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 4:38 PM Andrew Dul <mailto:andrew@quark.net>> wrote: Based upon the input we have received from ARIN staff it seems that additional clarity is desired in

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2021-7: Make Abuse Contact Useful

Email as a reporting mechanism does seem old these days. I'd might be ok with a URL, but not just "any URL" if the community is really interested in improving reporting, we likely need a structured data format and API so that input can be better used by those receiving the reports. Andrew

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2021-7: Make Abuse Contact Useful

On 10/27/2021 12:26 AM, William Herrin wrote: On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 5:33 PM Andrew Dul wrote: I'd might be ok with a URL, but not just "any URL" if the community is really interested in improving reporting, we likely need a structured data format and API so that input can be

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2021-3: Private AS Number and Unique Routing Policy Clarifications

I'd like to propose another option for the last part of section5, to make it clear that a planning and implementation period is permissible. "AS Numbers shall be issued to organizations meeting section 5 criteria and up to 12 months prior to planned implementation on their network." On 3/8

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

The draft policy as currently written does not provide any additional limits against speculation.  As drafted, it allows any organization (including those who do not operate networks) to obtain IPv4 addresses for the purpose of leasing. With that policy change what types of limits does the com

Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2021-3: Private AS Number and Unique Routing Policy Clarifications

"To use an AS Number to interconnect with other Autonomous Systems." was intended to apply to situations where a public ASN number was desired for exchanging routes between organizations but where the concept of an "upstream provider" wasn't appropriate.  An example might be if an there were tw

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2021-8: Deprecation of the 'Autonomous System Originations' Field

Legacy holders have the option to add records to ARIN’s authenticated irr. It only requires them to sign an lrsa or rsa. In my opinion it is time for the free ride for legacy holders to end. I have no problem with a sunset date say 2-5 years from now but we need to move in that direction. Sp

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2021-8: Deprecation of the 'Autonomous System Originations' Field

On 4/26/22 5:45 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 6:20 PM Andrew Dul wrote: Legacy holders have the option to add records to ARIN’s authenticated irr. It only requires them to sign an lrsa or rsa. In my opinion it is time for the free ride for legacy holders to

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

On a related attestations, but weren't in the NRPM, in 2021 ARIN conducted a consultation on the state of attestations for other operational practices. Consultation on Retiring the Officer Attestation Requirement https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/2021-August/thread.html While I see

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

Attached is a redline pdf and resultant text after update which helps show the changes which have been suggested to update section11. Thanks in advance for your feedback on this draft. Andrew On 7/26/2022 2:37 PM, ARIN wrote: On 21 July 2022, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted "ARIN-pr

[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilizatio

ARIN Draft Policy 2021-6 was retitled earlier this year as “Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future Allocations” and the text was also updated based upon feedback from the community at the Fall 2021 meeting. https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2022-13: Clean-up of NRPM Section 2.10

Opposed as written. I do not find the new definition to be clearer, I do not know what a "non-divisible physical or virtual point" is or isn't Andrew On 8/23/2022 9:30 AM, ARIN wrote: On 18 August 2022, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted "ARIN-prop-318: Clean-up of NRPM Section 2.

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

Hello, We have prepared an updated documents showing the intended changes of section 11 to assist with the discussion at the upcoming meeting.   Please see the links below or the attached PDFs. https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/pdf/NRPM-Section11-update-20221012.pdf https://www.

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

This is a typo in the latest draft the shepherds intend to change the word "policy" to "document" for this bullet. Andrew On 10/18/22 3:02 PM, John Santos wrote: "Policy" is completely the wrong word.  Policies must be enacted according the the Policy Development Process, not by the published

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

Updated markup and new version can be found here for your review. https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/pdf/NRPM-Section11-update-20221021.pdf https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/pdf/NRPM-Section11-update-20221021-clean.pdf Thanks, Andrew On 10/26/22 10:44 AM, ARIN wrote:

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2022-13: Clean-up of NRPM Section 2.10

On 11/17/22 10:13 AM, ARIN wrote: Draft Policy ARIN-2022-13: Clean-up of NRPM Section 2.10 Problem Statement: As a result of ARIN’s fee harmonization direct assignments are no longer being utilized within ARIN databases therefore language around that has been deprecated and should be modern

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2023-2: /26 initial IPv4 allocation for IXPs

I'd also like to point out that we already have a method for refilling the IXP pool as needed.  The current policy states that ARIN should maintain at least a 3 year supply for these reserved pools and so far it would also seem that the returns to ARIN appear to be sufficient to add to the rese

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2023-3: Amendment of the waitlist agreement to include a restriction on leasing

Leasing is not currently defined in the NRPM.  Perhaps we should define behavior that we wish to restrict in terms that are already defined or are less ambiguous in this community. Perhaps replace the words "for lease" with "reassignment to another organization without direct network services"

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2023-2: /26 initial IPv4 allocation for IXPs

. Thanks, - Chris On Jun 20, 2023, at 10:42, Andrew Dul wrote: I'd also like to point out that we already have a method for refilling the IXP pool as needed.  The current policy states that ARIN should maintain at least a 3 year supply for these reserved pools and so far it would also seem

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2023-2: /26 initial IPv4 allocation for IXPs

In 4.4 it does say “ARIN will make a list of these blocks publicly available.” Is that information available with the IXP name etc? I believe this is the list that ARIN is currently publishing. https://www.arin.net/reference/research/statistics/microallocations/#micro-allocations-for-exchange-p

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

On 10/26/2023 12:42 AM, William Herrin wrote: Howdy, As I think about how to vote for the AC candidates, I figured I'd check the list archives to see how each one went about arguing for and against proposals over the years. Seems like a reasonable way to evaluate a candidate judged "well qualifi

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

On 10/26/2023 9:20 AM, William Herrin wrote: On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 8:27 AM Andrew Dul wrote: While the PPML is open to any participant we see very few active collaborators on this list. My perception as someone who has been on this list for a long time is that the number of active

Re: [arin-ppml] Should we disallow an AC member from submitting a policy proposal?

On 10/27/2023 1:24 PM, John Curran wrote: On Oct 27, 2023, at 2:01 PM, William Herrin wrote: On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 9:28 AM Andrew Dul wrote: Should we disallow an AC member from submitting a policy proposal? Hi Andrew, You got me thinking about this. There might be a useful change to

Re: [arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy 2023-4: Modernization of Registration Requirements

If we are "modernizing" the language of this section that should include removing old and outdated terminology.  While the terms "WHOIS" and "SWIP" are popular in the community, they are protocols and methods which are being replaced by new modern protocols and methods.  The language should be

Re: [arin-ppml] IANA advice re: Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation

Jason, I concur with your assessment, I believe policy text was designed for IANA to make its first allocation immediately upon one RIR dropping below the /9 inventory level. Andrew On 12/4/2013 5:37 AM, Jason Schiller wrote: > It seems fairly clear to me that that the policy instructs IANA to >

Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2013-8 Subsequent Allocations for Additional Distrete Network Sites

As the originator of this policy proposal, I support this draft as written. Andrew On 1/22/2014 2:21 PM, CJ Aronson wrote: > Hi everyone, > > If you have feedback on this proposal please send it to this list. We > will also be discussing the policy proposal at the upcoming PPC. > > Thanks! > ---

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-5: Remove 7.2 Lame Delegations

On 1/29/2014 4:18 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:27 AM, ARIN wrote: >> On 24 January 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted "ARIN-prop-197 >> Remove 7.2 Lame Delegations" as a Draft Policy. >> >> ARIN will actively identify lame DNS name server(s) for reverse address

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-6: Remove 7.1

> Draft Policy ARIN-2014-6 > Remove 7.1 > > Date: 29 January 2014 > > Problem Statement: > > 7.1 attempts to assert rules on rDNS management at ARIN. It fails to > do so because it only addresses in-addr.arpa (missing equally > important rules in ip6.arpa). It's also not based on any RFC; it's an

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 Micro Allocation Conservation Update

Hello, This draft policy will be discussed next week at the nanog PPC, in addition we welcome feedback on this draft on PPML. Specifically if you could comment on the following two points it would be appreciated. Thanks, Andrew Does the community support raising the minimum requirement for IXP

Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2013-8: Subsequent Allocations for New Multiple Discrete Networks - Revised

I support this new version of the policy. I believe the new text successfully deals with the issues raised and discussed at the Atlanta nanog PPC. Andrew On 3/4/2014 12:13 PM, ARIN wrote: > ## * ## > > > Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2013-8 > Subsequent Allocations for New Multiple Discrete Netw

Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2013-8: Subsequent Allocations for New Multiple Discrete Networks - Revised

On 3/5/2014 4:55 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 3:13 PM, ARIN wrote: > > > [ clip ] > > > >> Add the following statement to section 4.5.4. >> >> Upon verification that the organization has demonstrated need at its new >> discrete network site, the new networks shall be allocat

Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2013-8: Subsequent Allocations for New Multiple Discrete Networks - Revised

m not opposed to bringing end-users and ISPs closer together in policy, but again we're trying to fix a specific issue here with MDN. > > Abandon. Thanks. > > Best, > > Martin > >> On Mar 5, 2014, at 11:50, Andrew Dul wrote: >> >>> On 3/5/2014 4:

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 Micro Allocation Conservation Update - Revised

The ARIN AC would appreciate input from the community on this policy. Specifically, do you support raising the number of participants required to obtain an IXP micro allocation from 2 to 3? Thanks, Andrew On 3/4/2014 12:13 PM, ARIN wrote: > > > Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7 > Section 4.4 Micro Alloca

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 MicroAllocation Conservation Update - Revised

For those who are concerned about making sure these types of blocks are available in the future, there are two other avenues which could be explored beyond what is proposed in this policy. 1. Increase the size of reserved block which ARIN is holding for micro-allocations. 2. Remove the /24 minimu

Re: [arin-ppml] Ip allocation

A proposal has been submitted into the PDP process based upon feedback and breakout discussions that occurred at the last meeting. I believe this proposal may help with the issue which started this thread. https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/ARIN_prop_207_orig.html There is also another group

Re: [arin-ppml] NRPM 4.10 - is a /10 large enough?

On 4/29/2014 10:54 AM, Bill Owens wrote: > A couple of recent threads here and my general sense of the (lack of) urgency > around IPv6 deployment has made me wonder whether setting aside a /10 under > NRPM 4.10 - Dedicated IPv4 block to facilitate IPv6 Deployment - is really > going to be enough

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-204 Removing Needs Test from Small IPv4 Transfers (Sandra Brown)

On 4/30/2014 1:55 PM, sandrabr...@ipv4marketgroup.com wrote: > BUT: With the limitation of the transfer size to a /16 or smaller, it > would take a lot of transfers to hoard. It would take 256 transfers to > stockpile a /8. This is the 2nd means to prevent hoarding. Most > companies wanting tha

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-204 Removing Needs Test from Small IPv4 Transfers (Sandra Brown)

On 4/30/2014 4:50 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote: >> On Apr 30, 2014, at 4:45 PM, Andrew Dul wrote: >> >>> On 4/30/2014 1:55 PM, sandrabr...@ipv4marketgroup.com wrote: >>> BUT: With the limitation of the transfer size to a /16 or smaller, it >>> would take a lo

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-204 Removing Needs Test from Small IPv4 Transfers (Sandra Brown)

is only on the source entity and it only prevents them from receiving addresses within that period, not from doing additional transfers out. Andrew > > ----- Original Message - From: "Andrew Dul" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 7:45 PM > Subject: Re: [a

Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-204 Removing Needs Test from Small IPv4 Transfers (Sandra Brown)

On 4/30/2014 6:40 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote: > > On Apr 30, 2014, at 5:04 PM, Andrew Dul <mailto:andrew@quark.net>> wrote: > >> On 4/30/2014 4:50 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote: >>>> On Apr 30, 2014, at 4:45 PM, Andrew Dul wrote: >>>> >>>

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-16: Section 4.10 Austerity Policy Update

As the primary author of this draft policy, I support the policy. This draft policy replaces the current section 4.10 "transition technology" allocations with a more generic "austerity policy" which more closely aligns with other RIR's austerity policies. This policy does the following: 1. Cha

  1   2   >