nanog mailing list archives
Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]
From: Roger Marquis <marquis () roble com>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 10:36:52 -0700 (PDT)
John Curran wrote:
A) ARIN's not ignoring unneeded legacy allocations, but can't take action without the Internet community first making some policy on what action should be taken... Please get together with folks of similar mind either via PPML or via Public Policy meeting at the the Open Policy Bof, and then propose a policy accordingly.
Thanks for the reply John, but PPML has not worked to-date. Too many legacy interests willing and able to veto any such attempt at a sustainable netblock return policy. Not sure how us folks, of a similar mind as it were, would be able to change that equation. IMO this change has to come from the top down. Towards that goal can you give us any hint as to how to effect that?
B) Technical standards for NAT & NAPT are the IETF's job, not ARIN's.
Too true, but no reason ARIN could not be taking a more active role. This is after all, in ARIN's best interest, not the IETF's.
C) We've routinely lowered fees since inception, not raised them.
Not raised since they were raised, granted. Not raised for large unnecessary allocations either. Is that the job of the PPML as well? What telecommunications consumers need here is leadership and direction. What we see is, well, not what we are looking for. Roger Marquis
Current thread:
- Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests, (continued)
- Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests Rich Kulawiec (Apr 21)
- Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests John Curran (Apr 21)
- Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests Joel Jaeggli (Apr 21)
- Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests Ricky Beam (Apr 21)
- Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests Leo Bicknell (Apr 21)
- Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests Kevin Graham (Apr 23)
- Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests Edward Lewis (Apr 22)
- Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests Roger Marquis (Apr 21)
- Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] John Curran (Apr 21)
- Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] Chris Owen (Apr 21)
- Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] Roger Marquis (Apr 21)
- Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] Owen DeLong (Apr 21)
- Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] Fred Baker (Apr 21)
- Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] Jo Rhett (Apr 21)
- Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] Roger Marquis (Apr 21)
- Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] John Curran (Apr 21)
- Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] Shane Ronan (Apr 21)
- Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] Kevin Loch (Apr 21)
- Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] Brandon Galbraith (Apr 21)
- Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] Shane Ronan (Apr 21)
- Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests Rich Kulawiec (Apr 21)
- Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] Jo Rhett (Apr 21)
- Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"] Mark Newton (Apr 21)