<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><br><br></div>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.<br>
<br>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, <a href="http://206.223.132.0/24" target="_blank">206.223.132.0/24</a> (dis-aggregate of an assigned /22) <a href="http://bgp.he.net/net/206.223.132.0/24#_dns">http://bgp.he.net/net/206.223.132.0/24#_dns</a> 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 (<a href="http://206.223.124.0/24">206.223.124.0/24</a>). I can't verify it's usage either.<br>
<br></div><div>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. <br><br>That's not to say that these or more aren't actually valid. YMMV.<br>
<br>Best,<br></div></div><div><br></div>-M<<br><br><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:22 PM, William Herrin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bill@herrin.us" target="_blank">bill@herrin.us</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Heather Schiller<br>
<<a href="mailto:heather.skanks@gmail.com" target="_blank">heather.skanks@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> I am opposed to the policy because of this line " IXP's formed as non<br>
> profits will be considered end user organizations. All others will be<br>
> considered ISPs."<br>
><br>
> This statement will impact the overwhelming majority of Critical<br>
> Infrastructure assignment holders, the majority of which are not IX's. The<br>
> goal of attempting preservation should be done by how the allocation is<br>
> justified, not how much the entity is billed. 111 of the CI allocations<br>
> are not to IX's. Of the 66 IX allocations it is nearly split between end<br>
> users and ISP's.<br>
<br>
</div>Hi Heather,<br>
<br>
Read it in context. The draft replaces only one of five paragraphs in<br>
section 4.4. The paragraph replaced and its replacement address only<br>
IXPs, not other providers of critical infrastructure.<br>
<br>
<a href="https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four4" target="_blank">https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four4</a><br>
<br>
Nevertheless, would your objection be solved if "All others" was<br>
replaced with "All other IXPs"?<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Bill Herrin<br>
<span><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
--<br>
William D. Herrin ................ <a href="mailto:herrin@dirtside.com" target="_blank">herrin@dirtside.com</a> <a href="mailto:bill@herrin.us" target="_blank">bill@herrin.us</a><br>
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <<a href="http://bill.herrin.us/" target="_blank">http://bill.herrin.us/</a>><br>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004<br>
</font></span><div><div>_______________________________________________<br>
PPML<br>
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net" target="_blank">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br>
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>
<a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net" target="_blank">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>