[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-167 Removal of Renumbering Requirement for Small Multihomers

Alexander, Daniel Daniel_Alexander at Cable.Comcast.com
Wed May 2 12:07:44 EDT 2012

Thank you for the clarification Bill. Some of the reasoning behind 167 was
simply a synchronization between sections and 8.3. If you feel the
synchronization is in the wrong direction, it is a valid reason to
consider holding the line with the difference.


On 5/2/12 11:57 AM, "William Herrin" <bill at herrin.us> wrote:

>On 5/2/12, Alexander, Daniel <Daniel_Alexander at cable.comcast.com> wrote:
>> If aggregation is so important to require renumbering in section
>> why is it not a big deal in section 8.3 which will shortly become the
>> frequently used option?
>Hi Daniel,
>It is a big deal in 8.3 and at least some of us are still ticked at
>the AC for stripping it out the basic protections that were in the
>various discussions and proposals.
>Bill Herrin
>William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
>3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
>Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list