ARIN Comments
Stephen Satchell
satchell at ACCUTEK.COM
Sat Mar 1 18:23:05 EST 1997
- Previous message: ARIN List Topics
- Next message: ARIN Comments
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
At 10:36 AM -0700 2/27/97, David R. Conrad wrote: > >And why use states as the delinating boundary? Why should (say) >Nevada have the same number of registries as (say) California? Why >not use a more fair distribution function based on number of service >providers or population or number of telephones? As a soon-to-be-ex Nevadan, I have to echo your comment about allocating an /8 to the State. While we may be the only state raped by Lincoln for its land, the fact of the matter is that the current population could be serviced quite easily by a single /16, regardless of what UNR and UNLV think. The proposal for a *single* registry for the Americas means that any diaspora of numbers happens naturally, rather than having a shortage in one place and an abundance in another. From purely a resource management standpoint, splitting ARIN does *NOT* make sense. It also doesn't makes monetary sense, either. --- Stephen Satchell, Satchell Evaluations http://www.accutek.com/~satchell for contact info Opinions expressed are my own PERSONAL opinions.
- Previous message: ARIN List Topics
- Next message: ARIN Comments
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the NAIPR mailing list