[arin-ppml] Props. 122 + 123 process?
On Nov 30, 2010, at 7:46 AM, Sweeting, John wrote:
> No debate at all, I was curious about your question "how did the AC come to a /10?" and since I was not on the AC at the time I went into the transcripts to find out. I was simply answering your question, not making any specific point at all.
> From: Hannigan, Martin [marty at akamai.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 10:44 AM
> To: Sweeting, John; Scott Leibrand
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Props. 122 + 123 process?
> On 11/30/10 8:53 AM, "Sweeting, John" <john.sweeting at twcable.com> wrote:
>> Marty, if you go back and read the transcripts from the fall 2008 meeting in
>> LA it is explained by the author Alain Durand in his presentation. The poll at
>> the time supported this proposal 129 in room, 55 in favor, 0 against. Thanks.
> It's too bad that 2010-10 Global Policy for IPv4 Allocations by the IANA
> Post Exhaustion which was 40:5 didn't have such an easy go of it, but I
> don't think that this thread is a debate about how to judge consensus so
> let's move on.
Huh? The AC recommended adoption of 2010-10 after last call, so, I'm not
sure what you mean by your statement.
> That thread you quote isn't relevant, IMHO. It's already been established in
> the previous public policy meeting and following that the policy is flawed
> and we have multiple parties here agreeing. I think that defending 4.10 is a
> waste of all of our time at this stage.
I don't agree with your conclusion here.
> The relevant thread with respect as to why to deal with 4.10 at all is:
> [arin-ppml] Final draft of 2010-13 for Atlanta (Rev 1.55)
> That demonstrates the weaknesses with respect to 4.10 in more detail and
> includes suggestions to make improvements.
This proposal received overwhelming opposition. There was nothing in the 2010-13
debate that leads me to believe that 122 is in any way a good idea. If anything, I
think the 2010-13 debate leads me to the conclusion that trying to build hybrid
ponies was a bad idea and I should have stuck to the original clarification of
4.10 that was intended in the version of 2010-13 that was abandoned by the AC
just prior to the petition.
> When you analyze the spread of who benefits from 4.10 it's legacy holders.
> 4.10 pretty much insures that smaller entities are less-likely to be
> required to acquire address space on the open market and that legacy holders
> are going to have addresses available for medium and larger networks to
> purchase/fund through the STLS.
I think you mean through NRPM 8.3. STLS is just one possible interface to NRPM 8.3.
However, I believe that the primary beneficiaries of 4.10 are:
1. Eyeball ISPs that need additional resources for high-ratio conversion
or transition oriented technologies.
2. New ISPs that start up after IPv4 runout and need a small amount of IPv4
space to make their IPv6 implementation feasible while others still have
not completed the transition.
> V4 is done, no arguments here. I'm not a legacy holder and my agenda is
> mostly cost. If we're going to have policy related to transition it should
> have some support other than "there's nothing better proposed" or we ought
> to get rid of it. A fix would be better which is why 122 is out there.
While I do hold resources covered under LRSA, I don't see how 4.10 will
in any way benefit me or any other legacy holder.