[ppml] Version think... was: alternative to 2005-1
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 09:37:50AM -0800, David Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 05:25:53PM +0000, Paul Vixie wrote:
> > the usual round number thrown out in times like this is "20". which suits me
> > fine, but a lot of other round numbers would also suit me fine, like "200".
> > ARIN needs to get some utilization experience, and the inevitable side effects
> > of getting that kind of experience are: (a) a swamp of some size, and (b) an
> > early-adopter advantage.
> In any case, I'm definitely on the side of "let's gain some experience"
> of this. I think we need to do something, since nothing isn't working
> very well. If we limit the damage level, we shouldn't have long-term
> problems on a massive scale. (That's one of the issues, yes?) Doing
> nothing (again) would be generally detrimental.
perhaps i am using a different source, but "experiment" sounds
a whole lot like claiming the Internet is still an experiment and
with over 10 years under the operational belt, this si a new spin
on the term "early adopter"
we -are- doing things - numbers are being assigned, wiht justifications
that meet -todays- operational demands. changing policy now to conform to
an ideal that does not exist now and may not exist for years seems
counter productive to me.
much of the debate seems to center around how many prefixes can "dance
on the head of a pin".... as stewards of the number resources, i am
concerned when there are proposals to give delegations for huge tracts
without reasonable justification... and am equally concerned when we
try to "micro-manage" the processes.
reasonable,imho, cares less about getting a prefix into the mythical
DMZ, and more along the lines of will my peers accept the prefix i have
been able to justify. as usual, YMMV