[ppml]How far is too far?

[Bill Darte]

Text forwarded to the list by me earlier proposed that barring unanticipated
problems with route table growth, etc. that the boundary would advance from
/22 to /23 in a year.  There was some feedback that suggested a year my be
to limited a timeframe for the impact evaluation.... this because it will
take time for the knowledge that smaller assignments are available to become
well known and therefore for the full number of requests to be made and also
it takes time for those assignments to make their way into the production
environment.  Subsequent to movement to /23 another waiting and analysis
period would determine the ability to move again to /24 where the process
would stop..........again, this was simply a statement of intent related to
the 2002-3 policy proposal, not something embedded in the policy itself.

Bill Darte
ARIN Advisory Council 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dawn Martin [mailto:dawn.martin at mci.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 9:10 AM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: [ppml]How far is too far?
> 
> 
> Just wondering how far we intend on taking this? All assignments and
> all allocations coming directly from the RIR's? 
> -Dawn Martin
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net]On Behalf Of Ron
> da Silva
> Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 9:30 AM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] My idea was a non-starter
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 02:04:38PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > I am hoping that we can achieve clear consensus at the 
> meeting, although,
> > I think that will be difficult.
> 
> Better would be to determine that consensus here on the list and then
> simply confirm it at the meeting.  To summarize,  I believe we have
> thusfar seen some support AND opposition to 2002-3 and 2003-15 as-is.
> There appears to be some interest in changing either to include
> all of ARIN and both assignments and allocations.  I have yet to
> see any principal objection to moving assignments/allocations to /22
> under any permutation of 200x-315.  So, anyone care to argue AGAINST
> changing either assignments or allocations under ANY policy variation?
> Or, do we all support (or don't care to comment) such a change under
> one of these new or modified policies?
> 
> fyi...not that this is an issue, but folks may be interested, 
> other RIRs
> have micro assignments but not micro allocations:
> 
> http://www.arin.net/library/internet_info/rir_comp_matrix.html
> 
> -ron
>