On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 7:55 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> You can return as small as a /24.
>
> If you’re using half, then you can keep it.
>
> So, at most, you have to renumber 126 hosts out of each of half of your /25s.
>
> How is this not minimal again?
>
> Owen
I suspect Owen is trolling for effe
On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 1:14 PM William Herrin wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 12:59 PM Matthew Petach wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 12:47, William Herrin
> > wrote:
> > You understand that's not how jurisprudence generally works, right?
> > Court cases an
On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 2:17 PM Matthew Petach
wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 1:14 PM William Herrin wrote:
>
>>
>>
> "I cannot, in all honesty and good conscience, report something as
> "fraud" where the set of pertinent facts, as I have elabora
On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 2:35 PM William Herrin wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 2:18 PM Matthew Petach
> wrote:
> > Note that if there's actual indications of wrongdoing, we already
> > have a means to file a complaint with ARIN, as John has repeatedly
> > point
On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 3:29 PM Paul E McNary via ARIN-PPML <
arin-ppml@arin.net> wrote:
> John
> You keep using the word fraud.
> This is not an issue of fraud by my understanding but ARIN POLICY.
> Please correct your misuse of your language. PLEASE
>
Oy vey.
It almost seems like people don't
On Sat, Jul 16, 2022, 04:31 Ronald F. Guilmette
wrote:
> In message mmkdnponcu0yfn3d2mlvygzq2tfevobzgsr4pb...@mail.gmail.com>
> Matthew Petach wrote:
>
> >But if no fault is found, I don't think it's appropriate to have to
> >release documents or rec
Oy vey.
We've had this discussion before.
You can't lay a property claim to a number.
Google can't "buy" the number googol, and charge people a license fee to
use it
every time they count that high.
I can't "own" the number "pi" and charge everyone who tries to make a
circle
using it a licensin
On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 9:46 AM Michael Peddemors
wrote:
> Noticing more cases of IP Assignments for a 'company' with a North
> American presence, that simply reassigns/reallocates portions of their
> IP assignments to offshore and foreign companies with no North American
> presence at all..
>
>
On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 2:23 PM Ronald F. Guilmette
wrote:
>
> To put it another way, if a former and now-defunct ARIN member falls in
> the forrest,
> and if there is no requirement to make any changes in the associated
> public-facing
> WHOIS record(s) after the dead company's membership and re
On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 5:28 PM Ronald F. Guilmette
wrote:
> And as I have said, corporate
> entities of this type, together with natural persons, represent the
> overwhelming
> bulk of all ARIN memberships.
>
Fair enough; we'll limit the discussion to private corporations and natural
persons on
Hi Jamie,
As someone who faced a similar challenge many years ago, I'll chime in with
my thoughts on the matter...
On Mon, Jan 2, 2023 at 11:32 PM Jamie Nelson
wrote:
> ARIN newbie here.
>
[...]
>
> Questions:
> 1.) From our reading of the NRPM, it seems like we currently fall
> within the de
On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 12:18 PM William Herrin wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 12:08 PM Heather Schiller
> wrote:
> > We wanted to encourage discussion so we could
> > determine support, but not dominate the conversation.
>
> Hi Heather,
>
> Does holding the substantive discussion in closed me
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 7:16 AM, Chris Grundemann wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> ...
> 1) Do you support the principle of efficient utilization based on need
> (Conservation/Sustainability)?
>
I support Sustainability. I don't support need-based conservation.
"need" is too fuzzy a concept, and too easi
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 7:37 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >
> >> Plurality seems like an odd choice of word above. The implication is
> >> that if 21% of the equipment for which I use ARIN addresses is in
> >> North America, and as long as my use in each of the other four regions
> >> is 20% or less,
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 3:59 PM, David Farmer wrote:
> On 9/14/13 22:58 , Matthew Petach wrote:
>
> Why not simply use a phrase like "significant fraction" rather than
>> "plurality"?
>>
>
> The problem with significant fraction, its overly vag
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 11:45 AM, David Farmer wrote:
> I'm going to break this up into separate sub threads.
>
>
> On 9/17/13 10:20 , Matthew Petach wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 3:59 PM, David Farmer > <mailto:far...@umn.edu>> wrote:
>>
>&
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 7:00 AM, Bill Darte wrote:
> On Feb. 21 I sent the message (far below) to PPML asking the community to
> support one of 3 alternatives or propose new language which makes one or
> the other better, or a completely new wording which they believe
> accomplishes the goal of pr
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> As I understand it, the perceived issue is:
>
>
> [...]
>
> (Hopefully uncontroversial):
> 1. Authorize IANA to distribute 4-octet ASN pools to the RIRs without
> regard to their consumption of 2-octet ASNs
>
>
I'd support that, no conce
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 4:23 PM, wrote:
> [...]
> The only thing we don't know is whether this is a one-off problem, or
> whether other companies have the same issue. I would think other
> companies have the same problem but are not commenting. I suspect the
> people at ARIN33 felt the problem s
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 12:31 PM, David Huberman <
david.huber...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> We had a discussion today at NANOG in the ARIN PPC about needs-basis in
> 8.3 transfers.
>
>
>
> I’d like to state the following, and then let’s see where the discussion
> takes us:
>
>
>
> My team runs an AS
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 7:59 AM, Mike Burns wrote:
>Hi Matt,
>
> I put my comments below your signature.
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
>
> See, this is why I support maintaining the
> needs-based decisionmaking around number
> allocations.
>
> Because it's far too easy for a really big company
>
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Brandon Ross wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jun 2014, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Jun 10, 2014, at 16:39 , Brandon Ross wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 9 Jun 2014, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>>
>>> Your third item is absurd. If they don't find sellers with that much
space, then it mea
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Brandon Ross wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jun 2014, Matthew Petach wrote:
>
> I cannot absolutely prevent you from stealing my furniture
>> if you so desire. However, that doesn't mean I'm not going
>> to put a lock on my front door to at
I support the newly-redlined version of the draft.
Matt
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 2:42 PM, David Farmer wrote:
> To help additionally highlight the changes to the Policy Text since the
> 15 May 2014 version that the AC recommended; I'm including this HTMLized
> red-lined version of the Last Cal
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
> Scott,
>
> Asking me to do the work the AC is supposed to do is like asking a nun to
> certify their virginity.
>
In the interests of supporting our community, I volunteer to ...
oh, wait. Wrong question.
I mean "I support this propo
On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Steven Ryerse <
srye...@eclipse-networks.com> wrote:
> I've said this before, but this proposal might help an Org that only needs
> a /24 but I think it will hurt an Org that needs a /20 or a /22 as the
> needs test that are applied will force them into qualifying
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> John,
>
> The policy proposal in the archive initially stated that it should be
> brought to the attention of the community and didn't imply roadblocks.
> I forget how the whois requirement was inserted and I don't really
> care since the
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 12:20 PM, David Farmer wrote:
> On 8/20/14, 13:08 , John Curran wrote:
>
>> On Aug 20, 2014, at 12:24 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi John,
>>>
>>> Embedded URLs are not really the problem - the problem is
>>> MIME-encoded email and HTML-encoded email that hav
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 3:47 PM, John Curran wrote:
> On Aug 24, 2014, at 6:34 PM, Matthew Petach
> wrote:
>
>1) If the information above is correct, please confirm by visiting:
>>>
>>> https://www.arin.net/public/pocValidation.xhtml?
>>> validatio
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Jason Schiller wrote:
> Bill,
>
> Thank you.
>
> The intent was NOT to remove the requirement for in-region recipients of
> transfers to sign an RSA.
>
> My apologies.
>
...
> Option 2 - single bullet for "meet ARIN policy" and "sign RSA" (8.3 as the
> model text)
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 10:05 AM, David Huberman <
david.huber...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> John, we're on the same page here, I think.
>
> > I am not for or against the present approach, but want to understand
> > the community thinking on why enterprises should be prevented from doing
> > transfer
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Andrew Dul wrote:
> Hello,
>
> At the Chicago meeting there was some discussion around the
> micro-allocation policy (section 4.4) of the NRPM. I committed to the AC
> to produce a draft update to this section based upon feedback that I heard
> from the communi
I must confess, I've stared at
this subject line all week, and
I tried hard to figure it out; but
after studying
http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/COE
I honestly still do not know what a
"reverse COE statement" is.
Can you please enlighten me?
Thanks!
Matt
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 10:03 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Oct 14, 2014, at 16:16 , Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
> We had a situation in my city, the story just broke as a matter of fact,
> last week, about a group of tow truck drivers in cahoots with an
> owner of several wrecking yards who were
I oppose the proposed policy as currently drafted.
The notion of a /16 being "small" is ludicrous.
By the time you need a /16, you have enough
staff to handle tracking your SWIP/rwhois data
for your customers, and justifying needs is just
part and parcel of running your business.
I would support a
Keith--it's a way to cite support from 3rd-party
elements that aren't presented here, allowing
one to claim support without the rest of the
community having an easy way to debate
or disagree with that support. Somewhat
along the same lines as Steve's appeal
to the sentiments of the unvoiced masses
On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 3:01 PM, John Springer
wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> Thank you for the clear statement of opposition. Please allow me to
> address the points you offer inline.
>
> On Wed, 24 Dec 2014, John Santos wrote:
>
>
>> Oppose 2014-14
>>
>> 1) /16 is not "small"
>>
>
> This has actually be
On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 8:21 AM, ARIN wrote:
> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-17
> Change Utilization Requirements from last-allocation to total-aggregate
>
> On 18 December 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) recommended
> ARIN-2014-17 for adoption, making it a Recommended Draft Policy.
>
>
OPPOSED
How I subdivide and allocate addresses
internally and downstream is not a matter
for the community to vote on; that's between
me and my customers.
Matt
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 1:54 PM, ARIN wrote:
> Draft Policy ARIN-2015-10
> Minimum IPv6 Assignments
>
> On 17 September 2015 the ARIN
I am OPPOSED to the proposal as written;
I think it's a bridge too far. I would instead
support a compromise as has been discussed
of a total of one /22 per year per org-ID transferrable
needs-free; I would recommend the hold period
be two years from transfer date (ie, you may not
transfer that bl
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 3:22 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>
> Maybe there's a third way we're not seeing, like retiring e, adding
> the new element as f, and then re-inserting the catchall some other
> way, point g or as a sentence that follows the ordered list.
Oooh, I like that--remove the catch-
41 matches
Mail list logo
