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

David Williamson dlw+arin at tellme.com
Mon Feb 13 12:37:50 EST 2006

On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 05:25:53PM +0000, Paul Vixie wrote:
> 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.

Why not pick 256?  That gives a constrained size for the possible
future swamp, and could put all of the space handed out under such an
experiment into a single /40 (assuming /48 assignments).  Another
advantage of a small swamp - if we decide this was a bad plan, it's a
small enough space to have a chance of success at renumbering into some
future allocation plan.  (Although that's a stiff penalty for the
early adopters....)

In any case, I'm definitely on the side of "let's gain some experience"
of this.  I think we need to do something, since nothing isn't working
very well.  If we limit the damage level, we shouldn't have long-term
problems on a massive scale.  (That's one of the issues, yes?)  Doing
nothing (again) would be generally detrimental.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list