[ppml] Version think... was: alternative to 2005-1

[Paul Vixie]

# So if we assume your belief may prove correct, it would seem that what we
# need is to limit the number of PI allocations that can be made under the
# policy, rather than limiting the lifetime of the policy.  If we set such a
# limit high enough, I wouldn't object to that.  What number would you
# propose?

the usual round number thrown out in times like this is "20".  which suits me
fine, but a lot of other round numbers would also suit me fine, like "200".
ARIN needs to get some utilization experience, and the inevitable side effects
of getting that kind of experience are: (a) a swamp of some size, and (b) an
early-adopter advantage.

# > and that the only real effect of 2005-1 will be to end the complaints
# > about how broken IPv6 is and how PI space is needed.  but, let's find
# > out!
# 
# Yes, let's.  I really think we should pass some sort of IPv6 PI policy at
# Montreal.  If limiting the number of PI allocations allowed under the policy
# makes that possible by making the policy more palatable to a wider audience,
# I'm all for it.  I just want to make sure that we don't set the limit too
# low.

but how would we know it was too low?  it's not obvious to me that running
into the upper bound would automatically prove that the upper bound was too
low; it could simply indicate that the entire approach is unsound.  that's
the kind of experience we need to gather if we're going to deploy something
which is, by every current measure and every current understanding,
undeployable.

here's a new question, though: is there enough guideance in 2005-1 to give
the ARIN staff the power to detect and prevent hoarding?  i'm not against
hoarding, necessarily, except that hoarding wouldn't teach us what we're
trying to learn from this experiment.