[arin-ppml] PolicyProposal:EquitableDistributionofIPv4Resourcesbefore IPv4 Run out

Michael K. Smith - Adhost mksmith at adhost.com
Fri May 23 18:27:49 EDT 2008 

Hello Nathan:

I decided to crunch the numbers to give a little statistical meat to my argument.  It's not just about protecting the little guy from the big guy.  :-)

Summary of Allocations/Assignments for January - May 2008

These were created using ARIN's published allocation statistics at ftp://ftp.arin.net/pub/stats/arin/delegated-arin-20080523.  

There was a discrepancy in the published data in that assigned blocks (all small and x-small) show up as allocated as well.  As such, I counted them only once within the allocated figure below.

Percentage of Allocated and Assigned Space Assigned by Size
-----------------------------------------------
Large (X-Large and Large)		81%
Medium (Medium)			9%
Small (Small and X-Small)		10%

Percentage of Allocation and Assignment Frequency by Size
-----------------------------------------------
Large (X-Large and Large)		4%
Medium (Medium)			17%
Small (Small and X-Small)		79%

Total Allocation and Assignment Size in Slash Notation (Rounded to 2 decimals)
-----------------------------------------------
Large (X-Large and Large)		/8.58
Medium (Medium)			/11.73
Small (Small and X-Small)		/11.69

I am assuming that the Frequency percentage above can correlate fairly closely to 1:1 with the number of organizations requesting space because, given that it was only 4 months, there shouldn't be multiple allocations to the same organization because they would have requested a larger block to begin with.  However, I cannot confirm this so the actual ratio may be different.

From this data, it seems that the policy proposal will provide some cushion for 96% of the Members at the cost of 19% space that could otherwise be assigned to Large and X-Large organizations.

I then roll up these numbers will a few assumptions.

1) The Large and X-Large organizations will be market leaders in implementing IPv6, as others have discussed.
2) If they run out of IPv4 space first, they will push hard within their own organizations and to the vendors to solidify an IPv6 deployment, as others have discussed.
3) The Small/X-Small (and even Medium) Members will have a cushion of IPv4 allocations to carry them until the eye-balls are IPv6 enabled from (2) above so they will remain viable within their own markets/verticals/etc.

With all of that I would like to be at the forefront of policy proposals that help the 96-percenters.  

Regards,

Mike


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nathan Day [mailto:nday at softlayer.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 6:53 PM
> To: Michael K. Smith - Adhost; arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: RE: [arin-ppml]
> PolicyProposal:EquitableDistributionofIPv4Resourcesbefore IPv4 Run out
> 
> Michael,
> 
> I do agree with trying to make the most efficient use of the ipv4 resources as
> we approach the end of this limited resource and I’m glad people are
> discussing it.
> 
> You don't try to hide that this proposal is for the benefit of smaller orgs at
> the expense of the larger orgs.  I just don't understand what qualities a
> smaller org has that makes it more deserving of ipv4 resources than a larger
> org.  Are smaller orgs better custodians of ipv4 resources than larger orgs
> based on purely their size?
> 
> The current policies are intended to balance need and efficient use.  I would
> prefer to see the last blocks of ipv4 space allocated based on need and
> demonstrated efficient use of previous allocations.
> 
> Nathan Day
> SoftLayer.com
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf
> Of Michael K. Smith - Adhost
> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 7:22 PM
> To: Alexander, Daniel; arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml]
> PolicyProposal:EquitableDistributionofIPv4Resourcesbefore IPv4 Run out
> 
> Hello Daniel:
> 
> I'm sure you can guess my position, but the idea that smaller organizations
> would be more adversely affected at the point of depletion was part of my
> rationale behind submitting a policy that was tilted at benefitting those
> organizations.
> 
> I had thought through several different models for distribution, including
> flat percentages based upon org size, a model based upon only allocating in
> halves the last IANA allocation (if a /14 is left, you can't allocate the /14
> to one org, only half of it, then half the remaining, etc. But, that got ugly
> fast), and reserving space based upon the allocation size for the groups (x
> number of /20's, x number of /22's, etc.).  Using the percentages from
> previous allocations seemed the most equitable and, thus, the most likely to
> be palatable to orgs of every size, provided the bigger concept of helping the
> smaller orgs was accepted by the community.  If anyone has a better model I am
> all ears.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Mike
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf
> > Of Alexander, Daniel
> > Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 4:13 PM
> > To: Ted Mittelstaedt; arin-ppml at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] PolicyProposal:EquitableDistributionofIPv4Resources
> > before IPv4 Run out
> >
> > Ted,
> >
> > You made some points in your reply that I think echo the intent of
> > Michael's proposal. Aside from how it tries to get there, I am curious
> > to hear from the community on its thoughts of the rationale.
> >
> > Who likes the idea of a policy to handle an IANA depleted situation,
> > where the smaller organizations are less effected, in order to buy them
> > time, while the larger organizations are forced towards IPv6. It is the
> > largest IP consumers who will drive the vendors, and develop the market
> > for IPv6 enabled equipment. It is the smallest organizations who need to
> > remain on IPv4 until the shift has gained the necessary momentum.
> >
> > When the IANA pool is depleted, regardless of whether there is a black
> > market, or a paid transfer policy, it is very difficult to see a
> > sufficient supply of IPv4 resources, for the extra-large ISP. This means
> > that these ISP will hit the wall first, and hit it the hardest. It is
> > also this group who is more able to bear the burden of working with
> > equipment vendors, and software developers, to push the necessary
> > momentum towards IPv6. Would a policy proposal that supports this model
> > be preferred by the community?
> >
> > Dan Alexander
> > Comcast Cable
> > ARIN AC
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> > Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt
> > Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 4:42 PM
> > To: 'Michael Thomas - Mathbox'; arin-ppml at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy
> > Proposal:EquitableDistributionofIPv4Resources before IPv4 Run out
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
> > > [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Michael Thomas -
> > > Mathbox
> > > Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 12:22 PM
> > > To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> > > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal:
> > > EquitableDistributionofIPv4Resources before IPv4 Run out
> > >
> > >
> > > Ted,
> > >
> > > At the risk of receiving the wrath of the PPML Gods...
> > >
> > > > X-small:  61 cents/year
> > >
> > > X-Large fee is up to a /14. Anything over a /14 is no charge.
> > > So, you cannot apply a single divisor that applies to all X-Large. The
> >
> > > /8 that they may also have is FREE. Most X-Large pay less than $.01
> > > per IP.
> > >
> >
> > "...may also have is FREE..."  is a reference to legacy allocations and
> > I was not talking about that, those are a separate issue.
> >
> > As for the penny an IP address the X-large pays, sure on the surface
> > that seems unfair.  But, I will point out that precisely because they
> > are X-large, and have so many IP's already, that in a time of IPv4
> > runout, they are going to be under intense pressure to both move to
> > IPv6, and also to justify why they have so much IPv4 tied up.
> >
> > The small low-growth organizations who have maybe a /18 tied up, and who
> > are experiencing maybe a 2% per year real growth in customer count,
> > those folks aren't going to suffer in IPv4 runout time.  They will be
> > paying their bills, keeping people employed, keeping their customers
> > happy, basically being good citizens.
> > They will be able to sit back and weather the storm, and because they
> > have so little IPv4 tied up as compared to the large holders, nobody is
> > going to come banging on their door demanding they prove justification
> > for their holdings, because even if what they have has a lot of unused
> > numbers, the amount of unused numbering they have is so small it won't
> > help any of the larger well-financed consumers of IP addressing for more
> > than a few days of growth.
> >
> > The political and economic realities are that the X-larges are going to
> > bear the brunt of the costs of switchover to IPv6 - and they will also
> > suffer the largest customer losses, as they tell customers that they
> > can't support IPv4, those customers who don't want to switch (think -
> > all of them) will be going to the smaller providers.
> >
> > And when the large guys have ended up funding all the R&D for the
> > production deployment of IPv6, by then the small guys will have a
> > literal wealth of gear and deployment strategies to pick and choose
> > from, as well as be able to know all the pitfalls, AND even better,
> > since they really will be the last to covert over, their customers will
> > not be able to carry out the threat of "quitting service and finding an
> > ISP that will sell us IPv4"
> > since there won't BE any ISP's left that will sell IPv4.
> >
> > > > The fact of the matter is that on a per-IP basis, the smaller
> > > > allocations cost everyone on the Internet more money per customer,
> > > > because we have to carry more route entries for the same number
> > >
> > > It is a two-way street...
> > >
> > > > of customers, so I am perfectly contented with the "smaller
> > > allocation
> > > > tax" of more cents per IP per year
> > >
> > > Exactly how much of that "tax-the-poor" does your company collect?
> > > Other than providing a barrier to competition, how does it benefit
> > > your company?
> > >
> >
> > Naturally, our pricing has to be set according to what the other guy has
> > his pricing set to - that's determined by competition.
> > But, because we are smaller, we have much more flexibility in reducing
> > our internal costs than the large guy does.  So we pay more for
> > numbering, but we can do things like using PC's running Quagga for BGP
> > routers instead of Junipers, and the savings more than make up for the
> > IP costs.  (I'm not saying that we currently do this, but we have done
> > so in the past - and the reliability is no worse than the commercial
> > routers)  It all has a way of working out in the end.
> >
> > Ted
> >
> > > Michael Thomas
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
> > > > [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt
> > > > Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 2:32 PM
> > > > To: 'Charlie Sawyer'; arin-ppml at arin.net
> > > > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Equitable
> > > > DistributionofIPv4Resources before IPv4 Run out
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hey, whatever your smoking, I want some!
> > > >
> > > > ARIN -does- charge per IP address.  I may have imbibed a number of
> > > > hallucinogenic substances over the years but the bill we get from
> > > > them every year is most definitely NOT a figment of my imagination!
> > > >
> > > > Or were you under the impression that ARIN was funded by
> > > Tinker Bell
> > > > and friends?
> > > >
> > > > In case you were, here is the ARIN fee schedule:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.arin.net/billing/fee_schedule.html
> > > >
> > > > Fees per IP address:
> > > >
> > > > X-small:  61 cents/year
> > > > Small:  28 cents/year
> > > > Medium: 6 cents/year
> > > > Large:  3 cents/year
> > > >
> > > > and so forth.
> > > >
> > > > The fact of the matter is that on a per-IP basis, the smaller
> > > > allocations cost everyone on the Internet more money per customer,
> > > > because we have to carry more route entries for the same number of
> > > > customers, so I am perfectly contented with the "smaller allocation
> > > > tax" of more cents per IP per year
> > > >
> > > > If you go to Costco the giant bundle of toilet paper also
> > > costs less
> > > > per roll.  That's just how things work in life.
> > > >
> > > > But the idea that ARIN isn't charging money for IP's is rediculous.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ted
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
> > > > > [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Charlie Sawyer
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 11:04 AM
> > > > > To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> > > > > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Equitable Distribution
> > > > > ofIPv4Resources before IPv4 Run out
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ip do have value, as any business using the web to generate a
> > > > > revenue stream can tell you.  If Arin charged per ip, I doubt we
> > > > > would be
> > > > > running out of IP' addresses any time in the near future.
> > > > You would
> > > > > see a lot of IP addresses being returned that were not in use, at
> > > > > the very least.
> > > > >
> > > > > Supply and demand with free market can solve many issues.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Charlie Sawyer
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
> > > > > [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 12:25 PM
> > > > > To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> > > > > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Equitable Distribution
> > > > > of IPv4Resources before IPv4 Run out
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I support the idea of trying to equalize the last bit of IPv4
> > > > > address distribution, which this proposal is trying to address.
> > > > >
> > > > > However, I think that while the moral is a Good Thing,
> > > there is no
> > > > > practical way to mandate it.
> > > > >
> > > > > If this proposal were to be supported I would ask that the author
> > > > > modify it so that at the least, there would be an automatic
> > > > > expiration to this.
> > > > >
> > > > > The cold hard fact of the matter is that ANY isp or other "small
> > > > > or Very Small" organization that is NOT requesting IP addressing
> > > > > at this time to meet their projected future needs, is likely to
> > > > > get shafted when IPv4 runs out.
> > > > >
> > > > > On the day of IPv4 runout, if an ISP or organization does
> > > not have a
> > > > > supply of IPv4 to carry them forward for the immediate
> > > future, due
> > > > > to lack of planning, then I daresay they DESERVE to go bankrupt.
> > > > >
> > > > > Do we really want network administrators who aren't paying
> > > > > attention to the gas guage to be driving the Internet into
> > > > the future?
> > > > >
> > > > > Ted
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
> > > > > > [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Member Services
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 7:37 AM
> > > > > > To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> > > > > > Subject: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Equitable Distribution of
> > > > > > IPv4 Resources before IPv4 Run out
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ARIN received the following policy proposal. In accordance with
> > > > > > the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process,
> > > the proposal
> > > > > > is being posted to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List
> > > (PPML) and
> > > > > > being placed on ARIN's website.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) will review this
> > > proposal at their
> > > > > > next regularly scheduled meeting. The AC may decide to:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >       1. Accept the proposal as written. If the AC accepts the
> > > > > > proposal, it will be posted as a formal policy proposal to PPML
> > > > > > and it will be presented at a Public Policy Meeting.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >       2. Postpone their decision regarding the proposal
> > > until the
> > > > > > next regularly scheduled AC meeting in order to work with the
> > > > > > author. The AC will work with the author to clarify, combine or
> > > > > > divide the proposal. At their following meeting the AC
> > > will accept
> > > > > > or not accept the proposal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >       3. Not accept the proposal. If the AC does not accept the
> > > > > > proposal, the AC will explain their decision via the PPML. If a
> > > > > > proposal is not accepted, then the author may elect to use the
> > > > > > petition process to advance their proposal. If the
> > > author elects
> > > > > > not to petition or the petition fails, then the
> > > proposal will be
> > > > > > closed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The AC will assign shepherds in the near future. ARIN
> > > will provide
> > > > > > the names of the shepherds to the community via the PPML.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In the meantime, the AC invites everyone to comment on this
> > > > > > proposal on the PPML, particularly their support or non-support
> > > > > > and the reasoning behind their opinion. Such participation
> > > > > > contributes to a thorough vetting and provides
> > > important guidance
> > > > > > to the AC in their deliberations.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process
> > > can be found
> > > > > > at: http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mailing list subscription information can be found at:
> > > > > > http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Member Services
> > > > > > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ## * ##
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Policy Proposal Name: Equitable Distribution of IPv4 Resources
> > > > > > before IPv4 Run out
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Author: Michael K. Smith
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Proposal Version: 1
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Submission Date: 05/20/2008
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Proposal type: new
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Policy term: permanent
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Policy statement:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Upon receipt of the last allocation of IPv4 address
> > > space to ARIN
> > > > > > from IANA, ARIN will reserve address space within the allocated
> > > > > > block for Organizations within the defined ARIN Organizational
> > > > > > Size determinations (Extra Small, Small, Large, Extra
> > > Large) based
> > > > > > upon the utilization percentages for each group
> > > gathered from the
> > > > > > statistics of the last two IANA allocations to ARIN.
> > > In order to
> > > > > > make the allocation percentages mathematically feasible, the
> > > > > > percentages will be rounded to the closest whole number and,
> > > > > > subsequently, the the closest bit boundary for assignment the
> > > > > > maximum allocation size for the Organization size as defined by
> > > > > > ARIN.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Once the final IANA allocation is received, ARIN will
> > > publish the
> > > > > > allocation percentages that will be used for the final
> > > allocation
> > > > > > to the PPML and ARIN website with the necessary documentation
> > > > > > supporting the assignment of percentages.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Rationale:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Description:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This policy is designed to allow Organizations of the various
> > > > > > defined sizes to continue to receive address
> > > allocations from the
> > > > > > last available space and is slanted towards ensuring that
> > > > > > organizations within the Large, Small and Extra Small
> > > groups (and
> > > > > > more specifically, the Small and Extra Small groups)
> > > are able to
> > > > > > get additional IPv4 space at the end of the ARIN's ability to
> > > > > > allocate such space.  Given the statistics below, it is likely
> > > > > > that Extra Large Organizations would get most or all of
> > > the last
> > > > > > remaining space because given the amount they have been
> > > allocated
> > > > > > to date.  This policy would help ensure that other
> > > Organizations
> > > > > > had a statistically equal opportunity to receive space as well.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Example:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please see http://www.arin.net/statistics/index.html (Note: the
> > > > > > statistics are generated from IP allocations from 2006
> > > and 2007).
> > > > > > This policy would require statistics to be limited to
> > > the previous
> > > > > > 2 IANA allocations to ARIN.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The present distribution as of May 20th 2008 is:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Extra Large: 83.11%
> > > > > > Large: 6.75%
> > > > > > Small: 9.00%
> > > > > > Extra Small: 1.14%
> > > > > >
> > > > > > With this example, ARIN would reserve address space in
> > > the final
> > > > > > IANA allocation according to those percentages, to the
> > > extent that
> > > > > > it is mathematically possible within the existing
> > > range. In order
> > > > > > to make the math work, rounding would give us:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Extra Large: 83%
> > > > > > Large: 7%
> > > > > > Small: 9%
> > > > > > Extra Small: 1%
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Who is affected:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All ARIN Members will be affected by this policy.  I
> > > assume that
> > > > > > smaller providers will benefit from having some space
> > > available to
> > > > > > them beyond where they would be with an organic
> > > allocation model,
> > > > > > and the Extra Large Organizations would experience some pain
> > > > > > because, using the model above, they would be excluded
> > > from being
> > > > > > allocated 17% of the remaining space, even if they had
> > > all of the
> > > > > > necessary justifications for receiving allocations from within
> > > > > > that space.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Policy Enforcement:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ARIN staff will have to enforce this policy and ensure that
> > > > > > allocations stay within the published percentages.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Financial and Liability Implications:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Financially, there may be additional resources required by ARIN
> > > > > > Staff to allocate resources using this model.  These resources
> > > > > > might include application development, staff training
> > > and tracking
> > > > > > of allocations based upon the model.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ARIN may have legal liability should Organizations that were
> > > > > > denied space according to the model decide to contest
> > > the legality
> > > > > > of the policy in court.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Timetable for implementation:  Upon receipt of finall IANA
> > > > > > allocation (roughly 2011).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > PPML
> > > > > > You are receiving this message because you are
> > > subscribed to the
> > > > > > ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> > > Unsubscribe
> > > > > > or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > > > > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> > > > > > Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at
> > > > > > info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > PPML
> > > > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed
> > > > to the ARIN
> > > > > Public Policy
> > > > > Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> > > > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > > > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> > > > > Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at
> > > > info at arin.net if
> > > > > you experience any issues.
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > PPML
> > > > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the
> > > > > ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> > > > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > > > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> > > > > Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net
> >
> > > > > if you experience any issues.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > PPML
> > > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> > > > the ARIN Public Policy
> > > > Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> > > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> > > > Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at
> > > > info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > PPML
> > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> > > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> > > Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at
> > > info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PPML
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
> > Public Policy
> > Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> > Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if
> > you experience any issues.
> > _______________________________________________
> > PPML
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public
> > Policy
> > Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> > Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you
> > experience any issues.
> 
> 
> The contents of this email message and any attachments are confidential and
> are intended solely for the addressee. The information may also be legally
> privileged. This transmission is sent in trust for the sole purpose of
> delivery to the intended recipient. If you have received this transmission in
> error; any use, reproduction or dissemination of this transmission is strictly
> prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify
> the sender by reply email and delete this message and all associated
> attachments.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 475 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20080523/3c08d17d/attachment.sig>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list