[168633] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Updated ARIN allocation information
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Curran)
Sat Feb 1 10:16:48 2014
From: John Curran <jcurran@arin.net>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2014 15:16:19 +0000
In-Reply-To: <A7294BCE-5A4E-4670-948F-991862806A14@delong.com>
Cc: Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no>, "nanog@nanog.org List" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Feb 1, 2014, at 8:42 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
> While the policy text does not spell out a list of technologies, I believ=
e
> that the clear intent of the community from the discussions and from
> the examples given in the policy text was for minimal IPv4 allocations
> to support the transition process. While no ratio is given in the policy
> text, I doubt that a =93we have 200 customers wanting to do 6RD=94 would
> be accepted as justification for a /24.
>=20
> However, I am merely speculating here. I don=92t have any direct answers
> from ARIN staff about how the policy would be interpreted. My statements
> are strictly my own personal interpretation of the community intent and
> an expression of my intent as the author of the policy.
Owen -=20
=20
To be clear, ARIN is inclined to approve requests whenever it is possibl=
e
to do such in compliance with policy. Given the leeway in the present=20
policy text, we're likely to approve any reasonable request which is mad=
e
under this policy, and it would not be difficult to imagine requests for
/24 being approved as a result. If pooled use/oversubscription or speci=
fic=20
technologies are required, it would be very helpful to provide additiona=
l
policy text to staff.
Thanks!
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
