[ppml] IPv4 Soft Landing - Discussion andSupport/Non-SupportRequested

"I don't have objection to this proposal"...seems to abdicate
responsibility to others who have stronger feelings.

If we think of the ppml in the context of 'show of hands'.... You are
neither raising your hand FOR nor AGAINST....

 

I for one could like a clearer declaration if you can arrive at one
before we have to judge consensus.

 

Sorry...you were convenient 'to pick on' for this reiteration of the ACs
need for clear guidance by the industry.... ;-)

 

Bill Darte

ARIN Advisory Council

________________________________

From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of
Keith W. Hare
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 6:47 AM
To: David Conrad; ppml at arin.net
Cc: Bill Darte
Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv4 Soft Landing - Discussion
andSupport/Non-SupportRequested

 

With the explanation that the 100% efficient utilization of the previous
IP allocation is part of the current requirements, I think I understand
how this proposal fits in with the current policies.

 

I don't have an objection to this proposal.

 

Keith

 

________________________________

From: David Conrad [mailto:drc at virtualized.org] 
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 6:25 PM
To: Keith W. Hare
Cc: Bill Darte; ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [ppml] IPv4 Soft Landing - Discussion and
Support/Non-SupportRequested

Keith, 

 

On Oct 2, 2007, at 2:56 PM, Keith W. Hare wrote:

	I don't know for sure what it means to demonstrate efficient
utilization of 100% of an IP allocation.  For the definitions I can
think of, I'm sceptical that is possible to honestly demonstrate
efficient utilization of 100% of an IP allocation.

 

I was told by ARIN staff that 100% utilization of all previous
allocations is an _existing_ requirement.

 

Regards,

-drc

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20071005/6acd8699/attachment.html