<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"MS Mincho";
panose-1:2 2 6 9 4 2 5 8 3 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@MS Mincho";
panose-1:2 2 6 9 4 2 5 8 3 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Trebuchet MS";
panose-1:2 11 6 3 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Since the Minimum is being changed this month in policy to be a /24 in most cases, ARIN 2014-18 essentially boils down to an Org that is of a size that they
need the Minimum allocation - thus a /24. I assume this would mostly be requested by smaller Orgs but there might be cases where a larger Org only needs a /24. Hope this info helps.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Steven Ryerse<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">President<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">770.656.1460 - Cell<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">770.399.9099- Office<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"MS Mincho";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><img width="56" height="37" id="Picture_x0020_1" src="cid:image001.jpg@01CFC843.050D8590" alt="Description: Description: Eclipse Networks Logo_small.png"></span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"MS Mincho";color:#1F497D">℠</span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Eclipse Networks, Inc.</span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:.5in"><sup><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> Conquering Complex Networks</span></sup><sup><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">℠</span></sup><sup><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Trebuchet MS","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></sup></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Rudolph Daniel<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, September 4, 2014 1:14 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> arin-ppml@arin.net<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-18:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p>Straight away, I would have a problem relating to this proposal when there is continual mention of small, medium and large without appropriate definition ...in fact, I am not sure that we can hinge a policy proposal on such an arbitrary measure.<br>
RD<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Sep 3, 2014 8:18 PM, <<a href="mailto:arin-ppml-request@arin.net">arin-ppml-request@arin.net</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<p class="MsoNormal">Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to<br>
<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a><br>
<br>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>
<a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" target="_blank">
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>
<a href="mailto:arin-ppml-request@arin.net">arin-ppml-request@arin.net</a><br>
<br>
You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
<a href="mailto:arin-ppml-owner@arin.net">arin-ppml-owner@arin.net</a><br>
<br>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>
than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."<br>
<br>
<br>
Today's Topics:<br>
<br>
1. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2014-18: Simplifying MinimumAllocations<br>
and Assignments (Jason Schiller)<br>
<br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 1<br>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 20:17:18 -0400<br>
From: Jason Schiller <<a href="mailto:jschiller@google.com">jschiller@google.com</a>><br>
To: Owen DeLong <<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com">owen@delong.com</a>><br>
Cc: "<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a>" <<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-18: Simplifying<br>
MinimumAllocations and Assignments<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<CAC4yj2VSx2sXK5Myi65+pDT8uFpoASvQw=<a href="mailto:O0D-OQaM657iFkjQ@mail.gmail.com">O0D-OQaM657iFkjQ@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
Steven,<br>
<br>
I didn't see a specific response to the specific question Owen asked.<br>
<br>
"Is it your argument that anyone with a single host should be able to<br>
obtain a /24 per year? If so, then we can agree to disagree and move on.<br>
<br>
If not, where, between 1 and 63 do you think that bar should be set? You<br>
clearly seem to think that 63 is too high.<br>
"<br>
<br>
Every keeps throwing around the term "small" but it is not clear what is<br>
meant by it. Please define where is the bar for a small end-user and a<br>
small ISP (end-user and ISP in the ARIN sense of if you get an assignment<br>
to use in your own network, or an allocation to use in your own network,<br>
and for your down stream customers).<br>
<br>
If you claim of ARIN policy is unfair to small end-users and you mean small<br>
to be an organization that does not have plans for 63 machines in 30 days<br>
and 127 machines in 1 year, then yes, I agree the policy is unfair and<br>
locks them out.<br>
<br>
If you claim of ARIN policy is unfair to small ISPs and you mean small to<br>
be an ISP that does not have a plan to 205 IP addresses within 90 days,<br>
then yes, I agree the policy is unfair and locks them out.<br>
<br>
But remember the ISP gets to count each IP in use on their own<br>
infrastructure as used. They also get to count 100% of each subnet that is<br>
re-allocated or re-assigned to each down stream customers if that customer<br>
has demonstrated that they will be using more than 50% of their subnet.<br>
<br>
Four routers that are cross-meshed (connected in a box with a cross inside)<br>
using a /30 on each of the six point-to-point links and each with a /32<br>
loopback would account for<br>
4*1+6*4 = 28 IPs for infrastructure<br>
<br>
Twelve static customers with 6 hosts each (+ router LAN address + network +<br>
broadcast) is a /28 each<br>
12*16=192<br>
<br>
192 + 28 = 220 or 85.93% utilization of a /24.<br>
<br>
--<br>
<br>
If your claim is slightly larger ISPs (say one that has pre-orders for<br>
customer subnets totaling up to a /20) are locked out because even though<br>
they already have need, they cannot first get and put into service IPs from<br>
their upstream (as the upstream is unwilling to re-allocate so many IPs),<br>
and they can't actually deploy all these customers in 30 days and therefor<br>
do not meet immediate need... Then I would suggest you look at<br>
<br>
<a href="https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_20.html" target="_blank">https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_20.html</a><br>
<br>
One of the goals is to address the problem of ISP slow-start when they can<br>
no longer get IPs from their upstream.<br>
<br>
--<br>
<br>
If you goal is to dole out all of the small fragments that are left, then<br>
you might consider changing the policy to be implemented when the largest<br>
block available from ARIN is a /24.<br>
<br>
--<br>
<br>
If you goal is to allow organizations with only a single host to get a /24,<br>
you might consider not permitting them an additional /24 a year later,<br>
unless they can demonstrate efficient use of what they already have.<br>
<br>
I also suspect there will need to be some provision to avoid abuse from<br>
people spinning up organizations just to get space that they only intend to<br>
sell, or space that they want to stockpile for use more than two years from<br>
now.<br>
<br>
<br>
___Jason<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 5:11 PM, Owen DeLong <<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com">owen@delong.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> Steven,<br>
><br>
> You are properly following the procedure just fine. Please don?t take my<br>
> comments personally, they were not intended as any form of personal slight.<br>
> This is the proper forum to effect policy change and I applaud your<br>
> choosing to participate in the process and bringing a proposal to try and<br>
> solve what you perceive as a problem.<br>
><br>
> However, I believe that the policy you have proposed would be<br>
> irresponsible for the reasons I outlined.<br>
><br>
> I?m not sure what you mean about ?what goes on during the allocation<br>
> process for medium and larger organizations?. You claim to be trying to<br>
> help smaller organizations, so I?m not sure what you think is different for<br>
> them than for smaller organizations when they apply.<br>
><br>
> In my experience (and I have done applications for organizations of<br>
> virtually every size category available), they are all treated exactly the<br>
> same and held to the same standards for documentation, validation,<br>
> verification, utilization, etc. Effective September 17 (or thereabouts)<br>
> when ARIN implements the recently ratified policy change, the minimum size<br>
> will be a /24. The requirement to get a /24 for an end user will be to show<br>
> utilization of 63 addresses immediately and 127 addresses within 1 year.<br>
> The requirement for an ISP to get a /24 will be to show efficient<br>
> utilization of a /24 from an upstream provider or immediate need for a /24<br>
> (I don?t know the exact minimum host quantity used by ARIN for this, but I<br>
> have a hard time imagining how I could build anything I would call an ISP<br>
> with downstream assignments that wouldn?t justify at least a /24).<br>
><br>
> As such, I believe that any legitimate need for a /24 or more is well<br>
> served by policy already adopted.<br>
><br>
> Is it your argument that anyone with a single host should be able to<br>
> obtain a /24 per year? If so, then we can agree to disagree and move on.<br>
><br>
> If not, where, between 1 and 63 do you think that bar should be set? You<br>
> clearly seem to think that 63 is too high.<br>
><br>
> Owen<br>
><br>
> On Sep 3, 2014, at 12:38 PM, Steven Ryerse <<a href="mailto:SRyerse@eclipse-networks.com">SRyerse@eclipse-networks.com</a>><br>
> wrote:<br>
><br>
> > Owen, I appreciate the dialog but I think you are ignoring what goes on<br>
> during the allocation process for medium and larger organizations. You and<br>
> I disagree that the current policies are fair and I do not think I'm being<br>
> irresponsible to try and correct that! I've been told this is the proper<br>
> forum to effect policy change by you and others and I am trying to follow<br>
> the change procedure as best I can.<br>
> ><br>
> > As I've noted before:<br>
> ><br>
> > When a medium or larger organization requests a medium or larger block<br>
> they probably will come away from it with an allocation, possibly smaller<br>
> than requested but they are likely to receive an allocation none the less.<br>
> When a small organization requests the minimum block size and that request<br>
> is refused because of policy, they get nothing at all and no offer of<br>
> something smaller because there isn't anything smaller. So, no matter how<br>
> you slice it, that is an un-even playing field - and it is arbitrary,<br>
> unfair, and discriminatory against small organizations in favor of larger<br>
> ones. I have been pointing this out for years and I've said it just about<br>
> every way I know how. The have's get more and the have not's don't. It is<br>
> time this gets corrected to level the playing field for all as that is<br>
> ARINs Mission and raison d'etre.<br>
> ><br>
> > My proposal ARIN 2014-18 is specifically designed to rectify and level<br>
> the playing field so that regardless of what size allocation was requested,<br>
> a small organization can at least get the Minimum size block. This then<br>
> makes it so the larger org gets what they requested or something smaller,<br>
> and the medium size org gets what they requested or something smaller, and<br>
> the smaller org gets what they requested or the current Minimum. This<br>
> proposed policy Minimum allocation is limited to once per year per this<br>
> policy proposal.<br>
> ><br>
> > As I said many times before the needs testing policies should be<br>
> replaced by right-sizing policies, BUT, ARIN 2014-18 is only intended to<br>
> correct the unfairness of current policies for allocations to smaller<br>
> organizations and does not attempt to change any other aspect of the<br>
> currently policies.<br>
> ><br>
> > Also, as there is a lot of policy talent in this community, I would<br>
> welcome constructive comments and possible changes to this policy as long<br>
> as they don't change the intended purpose of this policy proposal.<br>
> ><br>
> > Steven Ryerse<br>
> > President<br>
> > 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338<br>
> > <a href="tel:770.656.1460">770.656.1460</a> - Cell<br>
> > <a href="tel:770.399.9099">770.399.9099</a>- Office<br>
> ><br>
> > ? Eclipse Networks, Inc.<br>
> > Conquering Complex Networks?<br>
> ><br>
> > -----Original Message-----<br>
> > From: Owen DeLong [mailto:<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com">owen@delong.com</a>]<br>
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 3, 2014 1:05 PM<br>
> > To: Steven Ryerse<br>
> > Cc: Gary Buhrmaster; ARIN; <a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a><br>
> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-18: Simplifying<br>
> MinimumAllocations and Assignments<br>
> ><br>
> > Steven, many of your statements are patently false.<br>
> ><br>
> > First of all, the current allocation/assignment process is fair.<br>
> Everyone is subject to the same policies and it is quite easy for small<br>
> organizations to obtain IP space under the existing process. I have<br>
> obtained legitimate assignments for organizations as small as a sole<br>
> proprietorship with no employees and have obtained allocations for<br>
> extremely small ISPs.<br>
> ><br>
> > I have yet to see an organization so small that they could not obtain<br>
> addresses under current policy because of their size.<br>
> ><br>
> > Needs testing is not merely a vehicle to save the remaining free pool.<br>
> If that were true, then we would not have subjected the transfer policies<br>
> to needs testing. Further, I?m all for distributing the remaining IPv4 free<br>
> pool to organizations with legitimate need as quickly as possible. I<br>
> believe that the longer we have an IPv4 free pool at this point, the longer<br>
> we will have to deal with the pain of this transition process and the<br>
> longer people will continue to procrastinate the necessary move to IPv6. So<br>
> if I truly believed that needs testing was really a vehicle to save the<br>
> free pool, I would be leading the charge to eliminate needs testing.<br>
> Instead, I?ve remained strongly opposed to eliminating needs basis from<br>
> ARIN policy and preserved needs basis when I proposed a significant rewrite<br>
> of the IPv6 allocation policy (which was adopted).<br>
> ><br>
> > I don?t believe any of Gary?s comments were at all related to<br>
> organization size, so your retort to his kitchen comment seems non-sequiter.<br>
> ><br>
> > ARIN2014-18 is an irresponsible attempt to streamline the process of<br>
> hoarding address space by creating multiple ORG-IDs and I cannot support it<br>
> as such. ARIN2014-18 would not only affect the remaining free pool (which I<br>
> doubt will be meaningful by the time any policy now being discussed could<br>
> be implemented), but would also not only allow, but encourage an<br>
> irresponsible fragmentation of address space for the purpose of monetary<br>
> gains through specified transfers.<br>
> ><br>
> > Opposition to 2014-18 is not about discriminating against small<br>
> organizations (anyone who has followed my involvement with ARIN or looks at<br>
> my voting record would have a very hard time claiming I support such<br>
> discrimination). While I don?t believe that the policy is intended to do<br>
> what I have said above, nonetheless, the consequences described are, IMHO,<br>
> the inevitable result should this policy be adopted and therefore, I oppose<br>
> the policy as written.<br>
> ><br>
> > Owen<br>
> ><br>
> > On Sep 3, 2014, at 9:22 AM, Steven Ryerse <<a href="mailto:SRyerse@eclipse-networks.com">SRyerse@eclipse-networks.com</a>><br>
> wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> >> I've been on projects extensively the last month and a half and only<br>
> now are getting back to this proposal. Gary, I take your comment below to<br>
> mean that you are not in favor of making the allocation fair to small<br>
> organizations. I think there has been a consensus building that it is more<br>
> difficult for a small organization to get an allocation than a larger one,<br>
> and I don't see anywhere in ARINs Mission that it is OK to discriminate<br>
> against small organizations.<br>
> >><br>
> >> I would also add that needs testing is really a vehicle to somehow save<br>
> the remaining ipv4 pool we all know the only way to stop that is to stop<br>
> allocating altogether which of course isn't ARINs mission. As to your<br>
> comment about being in the Kitchen I would ask you where in ARINs Mission<br>
> does it say that it is OK to discriminate based on an Organizations size.<br>
> >><br>
> >> ARIN 2014-18 is a reasonable attempt to rectify that and I would ask<br>
> for this communities support. As the Minimum was just reduced to a /24, it<br>
> is really going to save the remaining ipv4 pool to stop small organizations<br>
> from getting a /24? When do we stop rearranging deck chairs on the ipv4<br>
> Titanic that can't be saved?<br>
> >><br>
> >> Steven Ryerse<br>
> >> President<br>
> >> 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338<br>
> >> <a href="tel:770.656.1460">770.656.1460</a> - Cell<br>
> >> <a href="tel:770.399.9099">770.399.9099</a>- Office<br>
> >><br>
> >> ? Eclipse Networks, Inc.<br>
> >> Conquering Complex Networks?<br>
> >><br>
> >> -----Original Message-----<br>
> >> From: <a href="mailto:arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net">arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net">arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net</a>]<br>
> >> On Behalf Of Gary Buhrmaster<br>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 12:59 PM<br>
> >> To: ARIN<br>
> >> Cc: <a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a><br>
> >> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-18: Simplifying<br>
> >> MinimumAllocations and Assignments<br>
> >><br>
> >> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 2:58 PM, ARIN <<a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a>> wrote:<br>
> >>> On 17 July 2014 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted<br>
> >>> "ARIN-prop-210 Simplifying Minimum Allocations and Assignments" as a<br>
> Draft Policy.<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> Draft Policy ARIN-2014-18 is below and can be found at:<br>
> >>> <a href="https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_18.html" target="_blank">
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_18.html</a><br>
> >><br>
> >> Opposed as written. I believe that continued needs testing is an<br>
> important criteria for receiving resources, and this proposal would<br>
> eliminate justified needs testing.<br>
> >><br>
> >> As to the costs of doing business, well, while I can understand the<br>
> >> those seeking resources may not have properly planned for the costs of<br>
> >> their start up and/or expansion, that is a failure of the requesting<br>
> >> organization(s) leaders and their staff, and requesting relief from<br>
> ARIN policy because of that failure is not an appropriate response. If it<br>
> gets too hot in the kitchen, do not be a cook.<br>
> >> _______________________________________________<br>
> >> PPML<br>
> >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN<br>
> Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">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">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br>
> >> _______________________________________________<br>
> >> PPML<br>
> >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN<br>
> >> Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">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">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br>
> ><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<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">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">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
_______________________________________________________<br>
Jason Schiller|NetOps|<a href="mailto:jschiller@google.com">jschiller@google.com</a>|<a href="tel:571-266-0006">571-266-0006</a><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140903/caf8543b/attachment.html" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140903/caf8543b/attachment.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
ARIN-PPML mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
<br>
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 111, Issue 10<br>
******************************************<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>