[arin-ppml] IPv4 Run Out Proposals

[Chris Grundemann]

On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 09:37, John Osmon<josmon at rigozsaurus.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 07:24:01AM -0500, David Farmer wrote:
> [...]
>> But, I have another question;
>>
>> Should Transfers to Specified Recipients keep a 12 month window or be
>> reduced down to 6 month and then 3 months like allocations from ARIN. I
>> think they should keep the 12 month window, but I want to know what others
>> think.
>
> I might have missed something, but...
>
> 'splain it to me why any one type of transfer should be handled
> differently on the time axis?

The two transfer types (direct vs RIR) deal with different pools of
the same resource.  Both are finite but one is shrinking and the other
growing.  Therefor it may be logical to treat them differently in
policy.

In other words, the argument could be made that because direct
transfers were instituted to create/allow liquidity in
"post-allocation" IPv4 space; they should be as unrestricted as
possible, so that such post-allocation IPv4 can flow naturally to
where it is most needed (from where it is not).  On the other hand,
unallocated IPv4 space is something that we _will_ run out of and thus
should be spread to as many Orgs as possible before we do.

~Chris

>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>

-- 
Chris Grundemann
weblog.chrisgrundemann.com
www.twitter.com/chrisgrundemann
www.coisoc.org