[ppml] Allocation and reallocation

Jim Romary jromary at kane.jsouth.com
Mon Oct 27 08:31:07 EST 2003

Actually, my statement was confused more as a result of slop and haste rather
than any imprecision in the language itself. While I agree that definitions
may fail us, I also think that any group can use any words they like
so long as they agree on meaning. Just about every walk of life has
language intrinsic to itself that is meaningless to those outside of the
cohort. If we do not like the words, we can come up with different ones, but 
of course we are still left with defining them. We can fight over the definitions 
and properties of "Sliport" and "Kiotric" as much as we can over "Assignment" 
and "Allocation". We have simply shifted the fight to a different language.  
All groups "redefine" language to suit their purposes.  Of course I meant 

Assignments are addressses that should ALWAYS be returned by Assignees
upon the latter's seeking a new provider, its demise by bankruptcy, its...

My point, imperfectly stated and cut 'n pasted from Outlook to Notepad
to Elm back to Outlook before sending, thus dodging effective review on 
account of all the <CR> and <LF>, was to comment on MY historical understanding 
of the differences between Assignments and Allocations. Regardless of how 
we define Assignees(ors) and Allocatees(ors). 

The issue of "micro-allocations" is again coming to the fore. Regardless of the 
definition of "micro" (what length, how many addrs) the issue is sounding as if
ALL address space will simply be allocated to end users (RIRs and Joe Cable are
both ends of some pipe, btw), and they may do as they wish with them. By that I 
mean "Here ya go! Get yerself a Provider (oops. Need a definition here) with 
a backbone (oops. Another definition) who will route them." Every single
stage of the analysis can be held up due to a certain level of imprecision, 
because every stage uses language. 

Whether AFRINIC, say, is given leave to hand out addrs of of given prefix due
to unique socio-politico-technologico-technical considerations, is different
that the issue of whether someone should be an Assignee or Allocatee.

I have a sneaky suspicion that many with dogs in this fight know full well
what the distinction between the words is. And what it has been ever since
I got into the fray in 1995 or so. They just don't like the policy itself.

|>Allocations are addresses that should ALWAYS be returned by Assignees
|>the latter's seeking a new provider, its demise by bankruptcy, its
|A further illustration of the futility of trying
|to redefine the English language. Allocate and 
|assign are clearly synonymous in Jim's mind even
|though he recognizes a distinction in the properties
|that we associate with address blocks. 
|We simply do not have an appropriate verb or noun
|to express that distinction in English. The normal 
|course of events in this situation is to use
|adjectives, i.e. black t-shirt and white t-shirt.
|What is the essence of the distinction we are trying
|to make and what are some of the ADJECTIVES we could
|use to express that distinction? Is it simply that
|some address blocks can be handed on to others by
|the recipient and others can't? Or are there other
|important properties that need to be distinguished?
|--Michael Dillon

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list