[ppml] New Alternative Text... was: version thought

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Thu Feb 16 01:38:22 EST 2006

>    Glad you found it a acceptable alternititave. I think it will
> be good if we have some options available when it comes time to
> meet in Canada.
>    The big things I like about my proposal vs. the current 2005-1 text.
> My text allows for large organizations a clear way to get more
> space then a very small site could get. This is the part I thought
> would have been totaly left up to ARIN staff to deal with if the
> current 2005-1 text should get aproved. To do this required not
> using the term 'end site', and defining what it would take to
> get more then a single /48 address block.
I understand.  I am actually OK with staff discretion on this, but,
I can see both sides of that coin.

>   The use of actual numbers of unique addresses, rather then
> referring to IPv4 policy... The numbers I used are the exact
> numbers that would be used today, if a organization was to
> apply for IPv4 space... I agree that these are basicly arbitrary
> but it seems the only alternititive would be to say 'anyone'
> who wants PI space can have it of they are willing to pay for
> it.
Actually, they are not.  Today, to qualify for a /22 in IPv4,
you must show use of a /23 (510 unique addresses), so, technically,
you have doubled the requirement (plus a little).

>    I've re-worded the text I submited previously. None of the
> basic concepts were changed, however I belive this text is
> more clear on a few points... Perticularly with regard to
> single-site end-user subsequent requests for space. (
> in this version).
Well... To my reading, you've come a whole lot closer to what I
consider acceptable requirements vs. my original interpretation
of your use of the term large organizations.

>   I know it's too late to submit a formal policy proposal at this
> point, but I would like it if this could at least be used as
> an alternative text/wording to the current offical 2005-1 text
> if we can not achive concensus on that offical policy proposal text.
I will here publicly state that I, personally am willing to have both
alternatives presented together during the 2005-1 presentation.  I don't
know how Kevin feels about this, and, I don't know what rules, if any,
may preclude it.  However, I'd be happy to share the podium with you
if that works for the AC/BOT and Kevin, my 2005-1 co-author.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20060215/305096d9/attachment-0001.sig>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list