[arin-ppml] Ted's Comment on 2009-2

[Kevin Kargel]

________________________________________

Reply from Fred Wettling
Kevin - Thanks for the reality check in response to Stacy’s comment.  Based
on your experience I’m interested in any comments you might have on Draft
Policy 2009-2: Depleted IPv4 Reserves.
Thanks - Fred
________________________________________

Fred,

By default I should support 2009-2 as it supports my particular business
position.  I very much like the hysteresis you built in for
re/de-activation.  Coupled with a bi-annual request rate limit this would
very effectively delay the IPv4 drop dead date.

2009-2 fits my business better than would an alternate of going down to
three (or even two) month projected allocation requests.

Having said that ( ← is this my tag-line now? I seem to be saying it a lot)
I am still not sure that artificially modifying the IPv4 runout date by any
means is a good idea.

I can see the potential for abuse of rate limiting via a shorter allocation
term.  While increasing permissible allocation frequency and shortening
permissible projection calendars would be more fair to large ethical
organizations, when large organizations exaggerate a need by a small
percentile it could make a quantity difference greater by magnitudes than
any total request I would make.  Is this meaningful?  I am undecided.

Kevin

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3224 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090430/2d0a625d/attachment.bin>