[arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2013-8: Subsequent Allocations for New Multiple Discrete Networks - Revised
cja at daydream.com
Wed Mar 5 09:01:24 EST 2014
My fellow AC members who were at the meeting handled the discussion well
and I didn't feel the need to speak on the subject. Mostly I listen to the
community and that is what I did during the PPC. That is not shocking :-)
Further.. this does change nothing but it also documents current practice
and the ARIN staff requested in a policy experience report that this be
documented so that it is clear what the current practice is.
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 8:17 AM, CJ Aronson <cja at daydream.com> wrote:
> [ clip ]
> >> You must not have been at the aforementioned consultation.
> > First of all I was online listening to the PPC. Second I didn't write
> You were registered:
> But you didn't say a word during the entire discussion and you are the
> shepherd. And considering that I spoke specifically on this topic at
> the PPC, that is outright shocking! :-)
> > changes but I do agree with them and belleve they reflect the concerns
> > came up at that meeting.
> Once you scrub the AC cheer leading, there was no support for these
> changes. No change would support that context.
> You can see for yourself here:
> >> > Add the following statement to section 4.5.4.
> >> >
> >> > Upon verification that the organization has demonstrated need at its
> >> > discrete network site, the new networks shall be allocated the minimum
> >> > allocation size under section 188.8.131.52 unless the organization can
> >> > demonstrate additional need using the immediate need criteria
> >> Talk about locking someone out of a policy lock, stock and barrel and
> >> flushing "stewardship" down the drain completely. Most MDN users are
> >> going to go straight to 184.108.40.206 only to find that they are locked out
> >> because they aren't contracted as an ISP. They could buy another
> >> OrgID... and pay another exorbitant fee if qualified I guess. If we
> >> really want to limit users to a /22 why not do it across the board?
> > There is nothing in this policy that isn't currently happening in
> > with MDN allocations. I am not sure what "contracted as an ISP" means.
> If an end-user attempts to use 220.127.116.11 they won't be turned away?
> 18.104.22.168 --- "If an ISP has an immediate need for address space, "
> Force feeding accomplishes at least one parties objectives, but always
> result in an unhappy patient. The AC needs to leave this alone
> considering that, according to multiple AC members now, it changes
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML