[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 Micro Allocation Conservation Update

Martin Hannigan hannigan at gmail.com
Sat Feb 15 10:13:02 EST 2014


Following up from the PPC held at the NANOG in the Icepocalypse 2014
(Atlanta). There was support for this proposal, minus the administrative
language around fee class. As I had mentioned, removal of that language
makes sense. It was a cleanup of language that had already existed, there
may be an unintended consequence of removal. I'm sure the AC will figure
something out.

I did a spot check of 206.223.122-142 nets and found that I could validate
2 out of 20 to be in compliance with 4.4 policy. One was a test network
with a few personal machines on it, 206.223.132.0/24 (dis-aggregate of an
assigned /22) http://bgp.he.net/net/206.223.132.0/24#_dns and one that
appeared to be a defunct IXP block that was formerly associated with
PacBell, but now with another, PCH. I found one transferred to LACNIC (
206.223.124.0/24). I can't verify it's usage either.

The overall states were a) assigned to defunct entities, b) not used to
policy, c) participants < 2 > N Yrs, d) former use well known, later use
unknown.

That's not to say that these or more aren't actually valid. YMMV.

Best,

-M<




On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:22 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Heather Schiller
> <heather.skanks at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I am opposed to the policy because of this line " IXP's formed as non
> > profits will be considered end user organizations. All others will be
> > considered ISPs."
> >
> >  This statement will impact the overwhelming majority of Critical
> > Infrastructure assignment holders, the majority of which are not IX's.
>  The
> > goal of attempting  preservation should be done by how the allocation is
> > justified, not how much the entity is billed.   111 of the CI allocations
> > are not to IX's.  Of the 66 IX allocations it is nearly split between end
> > users and ISP's.
>
> Hi Heather,
>
> Read it in context. The draft replaces only one of five paragraphs in
> section 4.4. The paragraph replaced and its replacement address only
> IXPs, not other providers of critical infrastructure.
>
> https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four4
>
> Nevertheless, would your objection be solved if "All others" was
> replaced with "All other IXPs"?
>
> Regards,
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140215/3b9d7c1c/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list