ARIN-PPML Message

[arin-ppml] Final draft of 2010-13 for Atlanta (Rev 1.55)

On Sep 30, 2010, at 2:04 PM, Hannigan, Martin wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> On 9/30/10 10:12 AM, "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Sep 30, 2010, at 6:59 AM, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 9/30/10 9:44 AM, "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>> 
> 
> 
> [ snip ]
> 
>>> Ah, no. The theoretical /25's and /18's would have been approved based on
>>> need. An equal reduction for all bolsters the equity of needs based
>>> allocations. Capping the reduction on the low side is the Robin Hood
>>> approach. 
>>> 
>> Look, at some low side point, one has to cap the reduction. If nothing else,
>> it absolutely impossible to hand out a fractional /32.
> 
> 
> Which I've demonstrated is financially objectionable especially considering
> that the cost of IPv4 address space beyond depletion is an unknown variable.
> 
>> I think it is impractical to hand out less than a /28.
>> 
>> I'll point out that you were the one in our earlier discussions who wanted to
>> raise this threshold rather than lower it.
> 
> 
> We're only discussing these low thresholds because that is how the current
> proposal is written and that's what we are discussing. The minimum
> allocation should be higher and that the reservation system mechanics are
> broken with respect to fairness.
> 
We're going in circles now. Making the minimums higher breaks fairness in
other ways.

You haven't offered a change to the mechanics that would change the
facts presented above or the fairness of the outcome, so, I'm not sure
what you have in mind.

Owen