North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
RE: ARIN, was Re: 72/8 friendly reminder
- From: Hannigan, Martin
- Date: Fri Mar 25 00:56:19 2005
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of
> Owen DeLong
> Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 12:00 AM
> To: Edward Lewis
> Cc: Andrew Dul; firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: ARIN, was Re: 72/8 friendly reminder
[ snip ]
> Right... So, things divide into two categories... Major
> Undertakings and
> changes to existing policy... Requires policy process.
> Easily implemented
> obvious wins for everyone (a pingable address within a new block would
> be an example here) where the first step should be a polite "Hey ARIN
> Staff, can this be done?" If the staff says "Sure...Easy...
> look for an
> announcement soon.", then my experience has been they tend to get
> implemented fairly quickly (I believe this is what I just saw from
> Leslie a couple of minutes ago on this very issue). If the staff says
> no, they generally provide reasons and suggestions. In this
> case, either
> the policy process or an alternative solution is probably in order.
The problem I see with it not being in policy process is that it means
it's not permanent. Personally, I think that this is a great idea,
but I don't necessarily agree that it's as easy as pinging a host
address in terms of scalability and effectiveness. Outside the policy
process, we lose the framework of discussion and consensus.
The staff is fantastic. Responsive. Intelligent. Good leadership. But
it may not always be that way. These things aren't static.