[ppml] ripe-55/presentations/bush-ipv6-transition.pdf

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Randy Bush [mailto:randy at psg.com] 
> Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 11:21 AM
> To: Howard, W. Lee
> Cc: Public Policy Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [ppml] ripe-55/presentations/bush-ipv6-transition.pdf
> 
> > It may sound kind of bad, but why is it bad for ten large ISPs to 
> > aggregate routes for assignments to their customers?
> 
> can you say "barrier to market entry?"  how about "cartel?"

I'm capable of pronouncing the words, but I don't see how they
apply.  If everyone is able to get what they need, even if some
people need more, there's no barrier.  

Maybe you mean that it's unfair that ARIN has a minimum 
allocation size.  There's a policy proposal process for changing
that size.  Proposals for changing it have occasionally found 
consensus.

Maybe you mean (as John Curran suggests) that in some future 
scenarios, more ISPs would be able to get portable address space.
While that might be true, I'm failing to see the relevance.

Bill Herrin pointed out a thread (which I did read at the time)
where several arguments were advanced:
* assertion that it's unfair that organizations pay by ARIN-
workload, not per-address
* assertion that it stinks that a customer moving a longer-than-
/24 between different upstream ASNs has to renumber
* assertion that representation from extra-large ISPs is 
disproptortionately low on list, and representation at meetings 
is 100 organizations wide
Maybe I missed the relevant point.

I appreciate everyone's efforts, but I still don't understand
your point.  I'm sure the communication failure is on my end,
but I could really use short, declarative sentences, in the
active voice, which don't rely on inference to understand
relevance.

Lee