I agree with Owen.
I support the policy either way.
Regards,
Mike
-Original Message-
From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf
Of Owen DeLong
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 8:42 PM
To: David Farmer
Cc: ARIN PPML
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-201
Rent and profit seeking?
That horse has long left the barn. But it's telling that arguments against this
policy reveal themselves to be ideological in nature.
Speculation? Only existing in fevered imaginations. Absent in RIPE despite its
"encouragement/enablement". Still waiting for evidence of
The existence of your company and other "brokers" isn't evidence enough that
people want to make money solely by buying and selling v4 resources?
Methinks you fail to see the forest for the trees!
Regards,
McTim
Hi McTim,
I'm really not sure what you are saying above, but actually the existen
t: Friday, February 19, 2016 12:17 PM
To: Mike Burns
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 128, Issue 7
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Mike Burns wrote:
> The existence of your company and other "brokers" isn't evidence
> enough that people wa
For what it’s worth to this discussion, we have as much access to pricing
information as anybody, and we do not see prices rising more rapidly in RIPE.
Pricing in this market is opaque. The only ones with access to this information
are brokers.
Anybody but brokers only can see information on
This is evidence that the transfer market is actually more efficient at
conserving address space than the needs-test regime ever was. Because
needs-tests and utilization requirements and revocation threats did not bring
these addresses into productive use, but the market did.
It is uncer
Hi John,
Given that all of our experience has been with needs-based transfer policies
(which
provide some back pressure to speculation, whether via the direct prohibition
that is
implied or the convolutions that is necessary to work around same), it is
rather unclear
if financial specul
I am answering Mr. Woodcock using the new subject line, I hope that is okay.
Hi Bill,
> On May 19, 2016, at 11:52 AM, Mike Burns < <mailto:m...@iptrading.com>
> m...@iptrading.com> wrote:
> I want community members to understand that this is evidence that the m
Hi Chris,
Thanks for your input. I have some issues with your assertions, inline.
Reading this thread, as interesting as it has been over the past couple of
weeks, makes a few things obvious. I make these assertions primarily to allow
others to point out any glaring misreadings I may be m
Hi Andrew,
I have a couple of questions about the policy proposal.
On Section 8.5.2 Operational Use.
First, why is this section even in there, does it serve some particular purpose?
Second, why does it refer to assignments and allocations in a section devoted
to transfers?
Overall, do we sti
Hi Scott,
OK, I understand how that can be relevant in concert with the lack of needs
test for the minimum.
So is there no needs test for the minimum?
Regards,
Mike
From: Scott Leibrand [mailto:scottleibr...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 12:16 PM
To: Mike Burns
acquiring them for speculative purposes.
Is the attestation required for first time initial transfers of the minimum?
It doesn’t seem to read that way.
Regards,
Mike
From: Scott Leibrand [mailto:scottleibr...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 12:16 PM
To: Mike Burns
...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 12:31 PM
To: Mike Burns
Cc: Andrew Dul ; ARIN-PPML List
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-5:
Post-IPv4-Free-Pool-Depletion Transfer Policy
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Mike Burns mailto:m...@iptrading.com> > wrote:
Hi Scott,
I do believe such a provision would have significant teeth with respect to
inhibiting
IP address blocks as a viable large scale investment opportunity. While
those
of questionable repute may want work around such provisions, it would be
rather
difficult to establish a formal veh
[mailto:scottleibr...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2016 10:09 AM
To: Mike Burns ; Michael Peddemors
; John Curran
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-5:
Post-IPv4-Free-Pool-Depletion Transfer Policy
Mike,
I think you're misunderstanding the i
confusion with buyers who either don’t yet have an operational network, or
buyers who are buying for strictly planning purposes.
Regards,
Mike
From: Scott Leibrand [mailto:scottleibr...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2016 10:22 AM
To: Mike Burns ; Michael Peddemors
Support.
From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf
Of John Springer
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 3:39 PM
To: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-4: Transfers for new entrants
Dear PPML,
ARIN-2016-4 was accepted as a
believe
ARIN should join RIPE and remove the language about reciprocity, while
maintaining the requirement for compatible needs testing.
Regards,
Mike Burns
-Original Message-
From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of David R
Huberman
Sent: Thursday, January 19
I forget where the original numbers came from, but with a total of 130,
obviously many /8s are missing.
Probably this count is not considering legacy space, most of which is North
American.
Including those legacy addresses, the supply for much of the transfer
market, the ratios are much more in ARI
regarding certain Asian NIRs, and the precedent has not proved dangerous.
Regards,
Mike
-Original Message-
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2017 8:29 PM
To: Mike Burns
Cc: Job Snijders ; Scott Leibrand ;
ARIN-PPML List
Subject: Re: [arin-
: Mike Burns
Cc: Owen DeLong ; ARIN-PPML List
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN Response to AFRINIC on Policy compatibility
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Mike Burns wrote:
> May I point out that despite reciprocity with APNIC, almost no
> addresses have flowed from APNIC to ARIN? I thin
Hi John,
Support.
Let’s not let policy artifacts from the free-pool era contribute to Whois
inaccuracy.
Mike Burns
From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of John Springer
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 3:33 PM
To: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: [arin-ppml
rding and speculation.
APNIC is considering ending needs tests now, but retaining the RIPE-type
language only to ensure ARIN sourced addresses are “needs-tested”, ahem.
Regards,
Mike Burns
___
PPML
You are receiving this message because yo
needs testing altogether
until and unless some problems arise from that removal.
Regards,
Mike
From: Jason Schiller [mailto:jschil...@google.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 11:48 AM
To: Mike Burns
Cc: David R Huberman ; arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2016-3
If that approach still doesn't work can you suggest some other mechanism to
prevent abuse that does not prevent an organization who needs IP space from
using this policy?
Hi Jason,
Why are we ignoring the mechanism that prevents organizations from buying
un-needed anything? To wi
Huberman [mailto:dav...@panix.com]
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 10:43 AM
To: Mike Burns
Cc: Jason Schiller ; arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2016-3 Revisited
Mike,
I buy a /13. I abuse the spirit of 2016-3, meant for smaller transfers as our
first attempt at no needs testing, by
tilting at
windmills and my posts are exaggerated eye-rolling attempts.
Regards,
Mike
-Original Message-
From: David R Huberman [mailto:dav...@panix.com]
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 11:04 AM
To: Mike Burns
Cc: 'Jason Schiller' ; arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: RE: [arin-pp
To: Mike Burns
Cc: David Huberman ; arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2016-3 Revisited
No, Mike, You are missing that “an organization’s business purpose” may be
something other than “running an operational network”.
We are attempting to ensure that the addresses go to those who
I am not the one making rules based on frankly unsubstantiated fears.
Where is your evidence?"
Regards,
Mike
Owen
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: David R Huberman [mailto:dav...@panix.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 11:04
I support the proposal but would prefer the simple removal of the world
“reciprocal” from 8.4.
The other language is clutter that we don’t need in the NRPM, IMO.
Regards,
Mike Burns
From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of Scott Leibrand
Sent: Monday
fer policy, rendering the NRPM
simpler, easier to use, and less cluttered by pointless artifacts from the
free-pool era.
So I don't support the proposal in its revised form.
Regards,
Mike Burns
From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of WOOD Al
Is there any interest in moving towards a slow-end of the needs based tests;
where the minimum 12 months (in 8.3, 8.4, and 8.5.5) becomes 6, after a review
period the 6 becomes 3 and later the 3 becomes none as the transfer market is
monitored throughout the slow-end to ensure this isn't enab
s rule to
see if this matters to anybody, because if it matters to very few people (2%?)
and if there is a workaround, then IMO we shouldn’t waste NRPM space on it.
Regards,
Mike
From: Jason Schiller [mailto:jschil...@google.com]
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2017 12:27 PM
To: Mike Burns
Cc
will have no effect. On the
other hand, denying needed addresses to these address-poor regions will affect
them direly.
Regards,
Mike Burns
From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of Rudolph Daniel
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2017 9:15 AM
To: Owen DeLong
Cc
Hi David,
https://www.apnic.net/manage-ip/manage-resources/transfer-resources/nir-ipv4-transfer/
CNNIC allows outbound transfers now.
So of your statistics below, really only the two /22s to KRNIC are valid
examples of transfers to one-way recipient NIRs.
Frankly I believe both KRNIC
Let’s not. This is a really bad idea and if we don’t put a stop to it now, it
will likely never get corrected.
Owen
Hi Owen,
In almost 5 years of inter-regional transfers, David Farmer identified two
transfers of /22s from ARIN into a one-way situation.
At this rate, if it doesn’
n APNIC or RIPE will allow his transfer to go through
today.
I support the policy but it would be far better to lose that additional
sentence. Just drop the world reciprocal and if problems arise they can be
dealt with later.
Regards,
Mike Burns
__
To: Mike Burns
Cc: ARIN ; arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Revised: ARIN-2017-4: Remove Reciprocity Requirement
for Inter-RIR Transfers
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 1:49 PM, Mike Burns mailto:m...@iptrading.com> > wrote:
Hi,
Can we get a definition of "IPv4 tota
Hi Kevin,
LACNIC will be presented with a one-way policy proposal in Montevideo in a
few weeks. It has failed to reach consensus twice but was returned to the
list, so it will be voted on again.
https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2017-2
Regards,
Mike
-Original Message--
+1 to "Should have stuck with should."
I also oppose as written (amended) for the same reasons described below.
Regards,
Mike Burns
-Original Message-
From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of Michael Winters
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 10:33 A
I support as written for the reasons David describes.
From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of David Farmer
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 10:27 AM
To: Rob Seastrom
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Post-ARIN-40 updates to 2017-4
I support this po
Support as written and appreciate the pruning of the NRPM.
Mike Burns
From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of Roberts, Orin
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 3:42 PM
To: ARIN
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-10: Repeal of
karound, obtaining a new ASN in an appropriate RIR, is available for
> all members of the community."
>
Input from staff or community on the current status of these objections is
appreciated.
Considering how it works between RIPE a
Hi Chris,
We find demand for short ASNs, particularly in the APNIC region.
The top part of the APNIC transfer list shows a lot of ASN transfers.
https://www.apnic.net/manage-ip/manage-resources/transfer-resources/transfer-logs/
They cost roughly $1K.
Regards,
Mike Burns
From: Chris
source for IPv4 transfers.
That is a longer history of allocations and more short numbers in ARIN.
Regards,
Mike
From: Chris Woodfield [mailto:ch...@semihuman.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2017 11:01 AM
To: Mike Burns
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Inter
Hi John
APNIC and RIPE are doing it today.
Surely the agreement you reference between RIRs about tracking has been
achieved between those two registries.
Can you provide any guidance on the timeline of the implementation period?
Or the costs involved, so we can see if it's worth the effort?
Reg
Hi John,
Thanks and Happy Holidays.
I submitted a proposal so we can continue the discussion.
Regards,
Mike
From: John Curran [mailto:jcur...@arin.net]
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2017 1:38 PM
To: Mike Burns
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net List
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Inter-regional
I support the policy.
What Jason misses below when he says “if they are willing to call themselves an
ISP, and pay the
appropriate fees.”
And
“for anyone who needs a /21 or less and is willing to pay an
extra $400 annually for up to a /22 or, and extra $900 annually for up to a
/2
Hello,
The transfer logs at APNIC and RIPE indicate that inter-regional transfers have
been completed.
I consider that objective evidence of need for this functionality.
Can somebody provide a downside to the approval of this policy?
Staff work? The heavy lifting has already been provid
Hi John,
I support this.
I am all for streamlining the NRPM by removing artifacts from the free pool era.
Regards,
Mike
From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of John Springer
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 2:07 PM
To: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: [arin-ppml] A
+1 to William’s sentiments
Regards,
Mike
From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On Behalf Of william manning
Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 9:26 AM
To: Roberts, Orin
Cc: ARIN-PPML List
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Beneficial Owners
I think the example, (2014, DE shell, owned by
Dear Albert,
You can't sell transition space per the 8.3 and 8.4 transfer policies.
You could merge them with an 8.2 or series of 8.2 transfers.
What ARIN needs to be sure is that those who ask for 4.10 and 4.4 are
actually utilizing the addresses for that purpose. That's it.
ARIN was smart in my
around the limits. As things get
more scarce in the IPv4 world, I suspect problems will get greater.
Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.
On Fri, 13 Jul 2018, Mike Burns wrote:
> Dear Albert,
>
> You can't sell transition space per the 8.3 and 8.4 transfer p
Ron wrote:
But I certainly do not ask or expect ARIN to take on the "Internet Police"
role with respect to those separate issues. I can and do however bemoan the
fact that the two blocks in question were issued AT ALL... apparently to two
fundamentally out-of-region players.
I bemoan these awards
I support the policy and note that: The costs to implement are practically
zero. Some community members have requested this ability, who are we to gainsay
their reasons? The changes to the NRPM are tiny and discrete. No downsides to
the implementation this policy have been offered in any comment
the onslaught?
As a reminder, stewards should govern with the lightest touch, responding to
the needs of the community. The community is asking for this, has been for
years, why not do it?
Regards,
Mike
From: Owen DeLong
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2018 7:05 PM
To: Mike Burns
Support. The current language confuses people and the new text is more clear to
everybody.
-Original Message-
From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of ARIN
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 9:43 AM
To: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: [arin-ppml] Proposed Editorial Update to NRPM (Formerly ARIN-prop-256
The whole concept is way beyond our remit as number stewards and prone to
corruption.
The only way I could see it work is if the proceeds are refunded directly via a
fee reduction.
That is *basically* the way it is working in RIPE.
I would avoid this concept as I think it would take a long
. That doesn’t augur well for our business.
Regards,
Mike Burns
___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at
doesn’t rise to the level requiring significant
changes to the waitlist policy.
Regards,
Mike Burns
From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of Rob Seastrom
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 3:24 PM
To: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy action menu for Waiting List (4.1.8) - feedback
Hello List,
The difference between a hijack and a lease is often a valid Letter of Agency.
Maybe it’s time for an explicit lease policy that would be within ARIN’s scope
and could chip away at some of the issues here.
Personally, I am against the proposal and agree that it is out of scope.
> If Organization A has an agreement/letter of authority to announce
> addresses that has been allocated/assigned to Organization B, and
> Organization B wants to replace Organization A with Organization C,
> but there was some onerous termination clause with Organization A that
> has not been
I found this to be an interesting article and perhaps others on the list
would appreciate knowing about it.
https://www.news-journal.com/ap/national/arin-wins-important-legal-case-and-
precedent-against-fraud/article_ceb57140-e574-5355-a8b3-c8f8c70a439e.html
Regards,
Mike Burns
Hi ARIN,
Will these 745,000 addresses go to the waiting list?
Regards,
Mike
From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of Mike Burns
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 11:10 AM
To: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: [arin-ppml] Of interest?
I found this to be an interesting article and perhaps others on
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20190514_735k_fraudulently_obtained_ip_addresses_have_been_revoked/
https://teamarin.net/2019/05/13/taking-a-hard-line-on-fraud/
From: William Herrin
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 5:05 PM
To: Jimmy Hess
Cc: Mike Burns ; arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re
Other shoe dropped yesterday.
https://ecf.scd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/qrySummary.pl?250341
20 counts of wire fraud.___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsub
5 May 2019 14:54:31 -0400 Martin Hannigan
wrote
And PR
https://www.postandcourier.com/business/charleston-tech-firm-and-its-ceo-are-indicted-for-fraud/article_4ce68788-773c-11e9-845d-d358d719d2df.html
/lawnchair
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 14:44 Mike Burns <mailto:m...@iptradi
not recovered.
But IANAL.
From: Douglas Haber
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 3:27 PM
To: 'Mike Burns' ; 'Martin Hannigan'
Cc: 'arin-ppml'
Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] Of further interest...
I have reviewed the indictment and it has a forfeiture order in it. I
up to the amount equivalent to the value of the above-described
forfeitable property.
From: Chris Woodfield
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 3:33 PM
To: Douglas Haber
Cc: Mike Burns ; Martin Hannigan ;
arin-ppml
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Of further interest...
I’d presume that if
The percentages of blocks transferred takes a significant leap at the /19
size.
Below that, the percentages are all below 7%.
At /19 and above, the percentages are all above 21%.
Seems like a natural demarcation for maximum block size, but prices do
continue to rise.
While we want to fight frau
think limiting the
resale potential of such blocks to reduce fraud is a bad idea.
Owen
On May 28, 2019, at 12:46 , Mike Burns <mailto:m...@iptrading.com> wrote:
The percentages of blocks transferred takes a significant leap at the /19 size.
Below that, the percentages are all below 7
processed through 4.1.8, so I don’t think limiting the
resale potential of such blocks to reduce fraud is a bad idea.
Owen
On May 28, 2019, at 12:46 , Mike Burns mailto:m...@iptrading.com> > wrote:
The percentages of blocks transferred takes a significant leap at the /19 size.
Belo
List IPv4 blocks transferred after issuance
On 29/05/2019 11:31, Mike Burns wrote:
Orgs will wait out any period, sitting with unused addresses until they reach
the resale date. Not efficient use.
If it's not a legacy resource and if ARIN gets to know about it, it may just
recover
position on a policy is automatically discounted by the amount
he stands to gain.
I know this does not apply to you.
Regards,
Mike
From: Owen DeLong
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2019 4:18 PM
To: Mike Burns
Cc: John Curran ; ARIN-PPML List
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Waiting List IPv4 blocks
policy.
Regards,
Mike
From: Robert Clarke
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2019 4:24 PM
To: Mike Burns
Cc: Fernando Frediani ; arin-ppml
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Waiting List IPv4 blocks transferred after issuance
Hello Mike,
Why are you using John's "waiting list I
#x27;t get updated is
**less important** than having people monetizing IP
addresses in such way while there are others on waiting
lists that truly justify for those addresses.
Regards
Fernando
On
29/05/2019 18:02, Mike Burns wrote:
positioned to make the call?
Regards,
Mike
From: Scott Leibrand
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2019 1:23 AM
To: Mike Burns
Cc: arin-ppml
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP leasing policy
On May 29, 2019, at 5:13 PM, Mike Burns mailto:m...@iptrading.com> > wrote:
Hi Scott and Fernando,
detailed SWIP… Maybe it can be utilized to
designate the LOA recipient?
Regards,
Mike
From: Scott Leibrand
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2019 10:27 AM
To: Mike Burns
Cc: arin-ppml
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] IP leasing policy
The portion that would be within scope as ARIN
Hi Jimmy,
A few things are conflated with leasing in your comments below, including
fraud, speculation and justifications.
Let's forget about fraud. Fraud to obtain resources remains a transgression
with any lease policy.
Justification issues are fair game, I think they merit further discussion i
Hi Fernando,
If you search “ipv4 leasing” you will find this practice widespread globally.
We have transitioned from the original distribution mechanism of the RIRs
before exhaust, to a new mechanism.
The new mechanism is the IPv4 market.
You are free to ignore it or tilt against it,
should ever have and prefer to keep this control in the hands of the
RIR so things can be done more fairly and not let them be negotiated as a kind
of real estate business.
Fernando
On 30/05/2019 14:44, Mike Burns wrote:
Hi Fernando,
If you search “ipv4 leasing” you will find this practice
ing to someone else which
is permitted by current rules.
The same way there are plenty of people which find a big deviation of the use
IP space should ever have and prefer to keep this control in the hands of the
RIR so things can be done more fairly and not let them be negotiated as a kind
of
I agree with Robert and Bill that it is an illogical market distortion to
have this source of free addresses.
And that the assumption that "need" at an earlier point in time is still the
same "need" when addresses randomly come available in the future is faulty.
I would prefer to starve the waiti
ARIN would be a competitor AND a regulator in the marketplace.
I oppose the idea and support the idea of placing returned and revoked
addresses in 4.10.
Actually I proposed that as a new policy a few days ago but maybe it got lost
or I filled out the template wrong.
Regards,
Mike Burns
n the marketplace.
I oppose the idea and support the idea of placing returned and revoked
addresses in 4.10.
Actually I proposed that as a new policy a few days ago but maybe it got lost
or I filled out the template wrong.
Regards,
Mike Burns
-Original Message-
From: ARIN-PPML &
here.
Regards,
Mike Burns
From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of Scott Leibrand
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2019 2:52 PM
To: Owen DeLong
Cc: ARIN-PPML List
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2019-8 Clarification of Section 4.10 for
Multiple Discrete Networks
I am in favor of this change. We
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 allocating returned addresses to both 4.10 and 4.4 pools, or
whichever might need them most.
I know the 4.10 pool is largely untapp
Hi Owen,
It’s hard to predict when the useful IPv4 lifetime will end, so it’s hard to
say whether runout of these reserved pools is unlikely, especially if
conditions change.
If you feel 4.4 and 4.10 are severely overstocked, maybe a proposal to release
those “sequestered” addresses sho
er be seen as something normal or natural or first
option.
Fernando
On 15/08/2019 18:47, Mike Burns wrote:
Hi Owen,
It’s hard to predict when the useful IPv4 lifetime will end, so it’s hard to
say whether runout of these reserved pools is unlikely, especially if
conditions change.
If yo
e policies
allowing transfers intra and inter RIR is a example), but we must never forget
some principles that has always been base for correct IP space allocations.
Regards
Fernando
On 16/08/2019 10:43, Mike Burns wrote:
Hi Fernando,
Thanks for your input.
I think you are completely wrong in yo
[ clip ]
>From my perspective, there is no IPv4 exhaustion or shortage. Anyone can get
>almost anything they need on the transfer market. Granted, the shorter the
>prefix the harder it gets, but as it was demonstrated with 44/8 it is still
>possible. I'm not sure it is any simpler than
I also support the spirit of this policy, but have some questions.
Would the adoption of this policy mean that leased-out addresses would meet the
requirements to demonstrate efficient use of prior allocations when requesting
a new transfer?
Would lease contracts with Lessees meet the req
Hi Bill,
Off the top of my head…
There are many temporary needs that can be best met by leasing. Company
transitions, renumbering, time-limited projects.
Sometimes a company wants to test market an area.
Geolocation needs, some companies need a presence in multiple locations and
leasing is
ion. Times
have moved on, and any two networks can be easily “connected” for the 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 O
that simple question?
Regards,
Mike
-Original Message-
From: hostmas...@uneedus.com
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2019 2:37 PM
To: Mike Burns
Cc: 'Fernando Frediani' ; 'arin-ppml'
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment to
Non-Con
"new LIRs" joining to slurp up the dregs of the remaining free
pool at RIPE, which is reserved for new entrants.
Regards,
Mike
-Original Message-
From: hostmas...@uneedus.com
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2019 3:05 PM
To: Mike Burns
Cc: 'arin-ppml'
Subject
gt;> It’s my opinion that this carrot and stick approach will induce
>> Lessors to properly register their leases while also providing a
>> clear demarcation of leasing versus hijacking that will empower our
>> community and potent
Hi Fernando,
You asked me some questions so I will reply to them inline, and because we have
drifted, this will be my last post on this directly. I mentioned 2050 to
highlight the unchanging stewardship requirements, conservation and
registration, as an effort to demonstrate that your attemp
n somebody even offer a
description of how hoarding would work *in this market* to a speculator's
benefit?
Regards,
Mike
On Mon, 30 Sep 2019, Mike Burns wrote:
> Hi Fernando,
>
> Let me address the two items highlighted in your reply below.
>
> First is the reduc
Should we make 2019-18 clearly say that reallocation or reassignment to
non-connected networks who will themselves make operational use of the leased
addresses is considered efficient use? Basically, keep the “use” requirement
around reassignments the same as it is now, and just state clearly
1 - 100 of 382 matches
Mail list logo
