[ppml] alternative to 2005-1
George Kuzmowycz
George.Kuzmowycz at aipso.com
Thu Feb 9 16:49:28 EST 2006
- Previous message: [ppml] Comments on revised 2005-1 proposal of 2006-02-03
- Next message: [ppml] Principles for IPv6 PI allocations to end sites
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
>>> "Andrew Dul" <andrew.dul at quark.net> 02/09/2006 3:35:37 PM >>> > -------Original Message------- > From: Thomas Narten <narten at us.ibm.com> > > Heck, even if we set a threshold of /16, we'd be saying "anyone who > can justify a class B assignment". I suspect that the number of end > sites meeting that criteria is pretty large. > > I'd feel a lot more comfortable picking a threshold if I had a rough > idea of how many entities we're talking about who would qualify. Given > the above, even /19 sounds too low. > The proposed policy as written requires an org who requests an allocation to be an ARIN member for at least 1 year. >>> What justification is there for such a requirement that, when you parse it, doesn't end up sounding like restraint of trade? What organization do I have to be a member of to bid on RF spectrum with the FCC?
- Previous message: [ppml] Comments on revised 2005-1 proposal of 2006-02-03
- Next message: [ppml] Principles for IPv6 PI allocations to end sites
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the PPML mailing list