[ppml] New Alternative Text... was: version thought
Current IPv4 plolicy says 25% imediate use, 50% within a year. I used
the number needed within a year... I'm certianly willing to accept just
about any number that would allow for consenus, what ever that would be...
I just wanted to avoid the use of a pointer to IPv4 policy, so needed a
That would be great if you could present both, perticularly
of AC, BOT, and Kevin would all agree that was OK.
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Glad you found it a acceptable alternititave. I think it will
>> be good if we have some options available when it comes time to
>> meet in Canada.
>> The big things I like about my proposal vs. the current 2005-1 text.
>> My text allows for large organizations a clear way to get more
>> space then a very small site could get. This is the part I thought
>> would have been totaly left up to ARIN staff to deal with if the
>> current 2005-1 text should get aproved. To do this required not
>> using the term 'end site', and defining what it would take to
>> get more then a single /48 address block.
> I understand. I am actually OK with staff discretion on this, but,
> I can see both sides of that coin.
>> The use of actual numbers of unique addresses, rather then
>> referring to IPv4 policy... The numbers I used are the exact
>> numbers that would be used today, if a organization was to
>> apply for IPv4 space... I agree that these are basicly arbitrary
>> but it seems the only alternititive would be to say 'anyone'
>> who wants PI space can have it of they are willing to pay for
> Actually, they are not. Today, to qualify for a /22 in IPv4,
> you must show use of a /23 (510 unique addresses), so, technically,
> you have doubled the requirement (plus a little).
>> I've re-worded the text I submited previously. None of the
>> basic concepts were changed, however I belive this text is
>> more clear on a few points... Perticularly with regard to
>> single-site end-user subsequent requests for space. (220.127.116.11.a
>> in this version).
> Well... To my reading, you've come a whole lot closer to what I
> consider acceptable requirements vs. my original interpretation
> of your use of the term large organizations.
>> I know it's too late to submit a formal policy proposal at this
>> point, but I would like it if this could at least be used as
>> an alternative text/wording to the current offical 2005-1 text
>> if we can not achive concensus on that offical policy proposal text.
> I will here publicly state that I, personally am willing to have both
> alternatives presented together during the 2005-1 presentation. I don't
> know how Kevin feels about this, and, I don't know what rules, if any,
> may preclude it. However, I'd be happy to share the podium with you
> if that works for the AC/BOT and Kevin, my 2005-1 co-author.