[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 93: Predicable IPv4 Run Out by Prefix Size - Revised
jmaimon at chl.com
Thu Jun 18 20:46:29 EDT 2009
Martin Hannigan wrote:
> What will create a larger political storm is if we dramatically change
> our policy to be lopsided towards one party or another.
If there is to be a political firestorm, the lopsidedness cited is going
to be the one that goes far far far far in the other direction of
keeping some crumbs out of the voracious mouths of the few.
Is not 80% of all ARIN IP space enough for those mouths?
At a bare minimum, new entrants must be safeguarded.
> If "big ISP" has the need for a /10 why shouldn't they be able to
> acquire it after justification?
Because satisfying the longer terms needs of the many is more important
and more equitable than satisfying the very short term needs of the
The large consumers are also coincidentally the ones I would hold most
accountable for the state of ipv6 deployment, were I to be playing the
If anyone had the means and opportunity to make it happen, it was them.
Let them lie in the bed of their own making FIRST.
To hear them come up and complain about these crumbs is fairly disturbing.
>> If it happens, it will not be NYBISP's fault it will be ours because
>> they will only be doing what we are telling them to do. Big ISP are not evil,
>> they are Big and use lots of addresses, if you tell them they should clean out
>> ARIN they can, will, and should, because it is what we are telling them they
>> should do.
> We have policy. That policy is followed by our members.
And its always been followed, and its always been in the favor of the
larger consumers and its high time some equity is restored.
And now members want to change it. You cant cite policy in your
opposition to policy proposals.
More information about the ARIN-PPML