[arin-ppml] Looking at just the pro and con merits of 2009-1 review

[William Herrin]

On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Azinger, Marla
<marla.azinger at frontiercorp.com> wrote:
> Sunset Clause (was taken out of 2009-1)
> Pro: Sets a hard date to stop transfers and resume original policy.

Pro: The policy expires unless there is fresh consensus to continue it.

A policy establishing an address market is well out in front of
anything we've done before. The odds of getting it right the first
time are effectively nil. The sunset date assures up front that the
mistakes we make here won't propagate indefinitely.


> New Definition “Organization.  An Organization is one or more legal entities
> under common control or ownership.”
> Con: Large segmented organizations will have to face management of address

Con: Unenforceable. Ownership or control of legal entities is not
necessarily a matter of public record.

Con: Changes over time. Why should I be thrown into noncompliance just
because Buffet chose to buy a controlling stake both in my company and
in Verizon?



Use of the Emergency PDP process for a questionable definition of emergency.

Con: Sets a precedent for the misuse of the emergency PDP process.


Explicit disaggreation permission.

Con: encourages a BGP table explosion. While I personally think the
consequences of a BGP table explosion are overrated (the hardware
capability, at the moment, is very comfortable ahead of demand)

Or has that changed? 'Cause if we're no longer worried about the BGP
table, I'll happily submit a proposal extending the prefix length from
/22 to /24.


I reiterate that I adamantly OPPOSE proposal 2009-1.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004