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

Martin Hannigan hannigan at gmail.com
Mon Mar 10 15:38:13 EDT 2014


No exceptions for Caribbean.  Not necessary. And not part of policy so no
need to rather already.

The addresses are being protected for the future,  ncluding tbe Carribean.

Feel free to elaborate on "more", I'm interested.

On Monday, March 10, 2014, Bill Darte <billdarte at gmail.com> wrote:

> Oh, BTW....I don't have any problem with increasing from 2 to 3, but am
> against it for more....and, I may be willing to carve out an exception for
> Caribbean communities still encumbered by limited competition.  There, have
> a public exchange already in existence may support future competition.  I'd
> be very interested to hear from our colleagues in that sub-region.
>
>
> bd
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','scottleibrand at gmail.com');>
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> > On Mar 10, 2014, at 9:24 AM, Michael Peddemors <michael at linuxmagic.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','michael at linuxmagic.com');>>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 14-03-10 09:05 AM, David Huberman wrote:
>> >> Michael Peddemors wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> >While on the surface this might seem prudent, it may be onerous for
>> smaller players.
>> >>> >More information might be needed to determine adverse cases, or
>> possibly some
>> >>> >exemption for rural players that might not be able to attain a 3rd
>> participant.
>> >> Is a public exchange point really a public exchange point if there are
>> only 2 participants? Isn't that just private peering for the time during
>> which no one else participates? I'm not seeing the public good, justifying
>> the draw down of a /24 from the public free pool, for two participants.
>> >
>> > Understood, however the smaller regional players might want to get this
>> in place for the future, when possibly additional peers may come available.
>> >
>> > Just playing the devil's advocate, but that is the only reason I can
>> see for not increasing it to three or more..
>>
>> Any reason two small rural players shouldn't start with a PA /30 and
>> renumber into a larger block if/when they get a third participant?
>>
>> Unless someone has a good argument for why that's an excessive burden,
>> support changing 2 to 3.
>>
>> Scott
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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/20140310/5bd0603b/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list