الملف الشخصي
شخصLeo Bicknell
يجمع دليل BTW السجلات العامة المتعلقة بـ Leo Bicknell.
النشرة اليوميةالتحليلات الاستراتيجية للإنترنت
الملف الشخصي
شخصيجمع دليل BTW السجلات العامة المتعلقة بـ Leo Bicknell.
حقائق موثقة
اتساق وجهة النظر: متسق
The April 2004 argument for conserving addresses through small interconnection allocations is compatible with the April 2005 statement that ARIN already allowed qualified requests under the old wording. The later procedural clarification neither withdraws the conservation argument nor supplies a new opinion on whether the VPNs should interconnect.
2004-3: Global Addresses for Private Network Inter-Connectivity
التقييم: متسق · The April 2004 argument for conserving addresses through small interconnection allocations is compatible with the April 2005 statement that ARIN already allowed qualified requests under the old wording. The later procedural clarification neither withdraws the conservation argument nor supplies a new opinion on whether the VPNs should interconnect.
الشروط: The 2004 /30 example is an argument, not the adopted allocation rule. · The 2005 reply initially mistakes a quoted chronology for Michael Dillon's own view; the subsequent clarification means this exchange is not evidence of disagreement over eligibility.
but allocating a /30 per interconnection is likely far more IP conservative than converting the whole VPN to public IP just because it wants to connect to 10 other VPN's.
ARIN has said "yes" under the old wording.
2004-3: Global Addresses for Private Network Inter-Connectivity · 2005-6: IPv4 Micro-allocations for Anycast Services
التقييم: متسق · The address-conservation argument in 2004-3 and the requests for controls in 2005-6 are compatible: both examine how an allocation rule would affect address use rather than treating a useful technical application as sufficient justification on its own. This limited consistency of reasoning does not turn the undecided anycast position into support.
الشروط: The two proposals address different uses of addresses, so their stance labels are not a direct before-and-after comparison. · This finding is limited to the quoted allocation reasoning and does not establish a comprehensive philosophy or a final position on either proposal.
but allocating a /30 per interconnection is likely far more IP conservative than converting the whole VPN to public IP just because it wants to connect to 10 other VPN's.
My concern though is does the policy as written open up the floodgates and/or create loopholes with great abound.
اتساق وجهة النظر: الأدلة غير كافية لتقييم الاتساق
The November 2004 contribution proposes a separate, faster process for ARIN statements and recommendations, using 2004-8 as an example. It does not state a preference about IPv6 allocation size, and this one procedural argument cannot establish a change in that preference.
التقييم: الأدلة غير كافية لتقييم الاتساق · The November 2004 contribution proposes a separate, faster process for ARIN statements and recommendations, using 2004-8 as an example. It does not state a preference about IPv6 allocation size, and this one procedural argument cannot establish a change in that preference.
الشروط: His characterization of the proposal as nonbinding is an argument in the exchange, not an independently established procedural fact. · The preceding ULA draft message is not evidence of a position on this policy.
In the end, many of us seem to agree that we need a process outside the policy process to propose "ARIN Statements", "ARIN Open Letters", "ARIN Recommendations", or whatever you might want to call them.
اتساق وجهة النظر: الأدلة غير كافية لتقييم الاتساق
The June 2005 contribution defends a minimum directory-service obligation while leaving staff free to offer other methods. Its objections concern imposing additional compulsory technologies without broad support, rather than opposition to new technology itself. A single contribution does not establish consistency over time.
2005-2: Directory Services Overhaul
التقييم: الأدلة غير كافية لتقييم الاتساق · The June 2005 contribution defends a minimum directory-service obligation while leaving staff free to offer other methods. Its objections concern imposing additional compulsory technologies without broad support, rather than opposition to new technology itself. A single contribution does not establish consistency over time.
الشروط: The cost example is the author's warning, not a verified budget estimate. · Voluntary alternatives and mandatory service requirements are different claims.
The last sentence allows ARIN Staff to consider other alternatives. If enough people ask for LDAP, and/or LDAP reduces ARIN's costs, then by all means this policy allows them to do just that.
More to the point, if I am going to add something to the list, it needs widespread support.
اتساق وجهة النظر: الأدلة غير كافية لتقييم الاتساق
The August 2005 contribution welcomes easier anycast deployment but explicitly withholds a final opinion and asks for tighter controls. This is a qualified, unresolved position, not evidence that an earlier support or opposition stance was reversed.
2005-6: IPv4 Micro-allocations for Anycast Services
التقييم: الأدلة غير كافية لتقييم الاتساق · The August 2005 contribution welcomes easier anycast deployment but explicitly withholds a final opinion and asks for tighter controls. This is a qualified, unresolved position, not evidence that an earlier support or opposition stance was reversed.
الشروط: Concerns about unicast misuse and multiple allocations are questions about the draft, not proof those outcomes occurred. · No later settled position on this policy is present in the reviewed set.
I haven't yet formed a full opinion one way or the other, but I do think some tigher controls would make me much happer, personally.
2004-3: Global Addresses for Private Network Inter-Connectivity · 2005-6: IPv4 Micro-allocations for Anycast Services
التقييم: متسق · The address-conservation argument in 2004-3 and the requests for controls in 2005-6 are compatible: both examine how an allocation rule would affect address use rather than treating a useful technical application as sufficient justification on its own. This limited consistency of reasoning does not turn the undecided anycast position into support.
الشروط: The two proposals address different uses of addresses, so their stance labels are not a direct before-and-after comparison. · This finding is limited to the quoted allocation reasoning and does not establish a comprehensive philosophy or a final position on either proposal.
but allocating a /30 per interconnection is likely far more IP conservative than converting the whole VPN to public IP just because it wants to connect to 10 other VPN's.
My concern though is does the policy as written open up the floodgates and/or create loopholes with great abound.