[arin-ppml] FW: Integrating Draft Policy ARIN-2011-1 into NRPM 8.3
BillD at cait.wustl.edu
Fri May 27 11:31:57 EDT 2011
Sorry, meant to copy the PPML on this response...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Darte
> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 10:31 AM
> To: 'Martin Hannigan'
> Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] Integrating Draft Policy ARIN-2011-1
> into NRPM 8.3
> See comments below...
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
> > [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Martin Hannigan
> > Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 10:13 AM
> > To: Mike Burns
> > Cc: ARIN-PPML List
> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Integrating Draft Policy ARIN-2011-1 into
> > NRPM 8.3
> > On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Mike Burns
> <mike at nationwideinc.com>
> > wrote:
> > > Hi Bill,
> > >
> > > It's still not clear to me.
> > > Referencing "values" of an RFC is not terribly clarifying when
> > > attempting to match transfer needs requirements which
> > already are out
> > > of sync with RFC2050's 1 year window.
> > Especially an RFC that was written in 1996. In fact, it
> > this quite clearly:
> > " It is in the interest of the Internet community as a
> > whole that the
> > above goals be pursued. However it should be noted that
> > "Conservation" and "Routability" are often conflicting
> goals. All
> > the above goals may sometimes be in conflict with the
> interests of
> > individual end-users or Internet service providers.
> > Careful analysis
> > and judgement is necessary in each individual case to find an
> > appropriate compromise."
> > The "values of 2050" is a dead issue IMHO. The idea of inter-RIR
> > transfer should go back to the drawing board entirely. Both
> > and opinion have grown significantly and the path that this
> > is taking does not reflect that. Trying to adjust it
> midstream to rush
> > something in is a grave error all considered.
> I believe that the efforts to date have been serious and the
> PDP is the mechanism through which current need is assessed
> in the ARIN region, DP 2011-1 is in the phase for discussion
> and compromise and your input along with all other is important.
> > I'm not in favor of this approach, or any approach that has
> > to date.
> The 'approach' that you refer to is related to and Inter-RIR
> transfer itself, the 'values of 2050', the RIR's agreement,
> needs basis for tansfer?
> I'm unsure of exactly what you are requesting when you say
> "back to the drawing board"...as I believe that we are at the
> drawing board related to Inter-RIR transfers of IPv4 resources.
> > Best,
> > -M<
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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 info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML