[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 102: Reduce and Simplify IPv4 Initial Allocations
tedm at ipinc.net
Fri Nov 13 21:03:42 EST 2009
Milton L Mueller wrote:
>> -----Original Message----- Mr. W needs some address space at his
>> colo. He can't qualify via the colo's rules or ARIN's.
> Interesting that in this thread, no one has interrogated this
> disjunction. Mr. W thinks he "needs" address space but ARIN and the
> colo don't. Isn't it worth considering for just a few moments what
> causes that gap in perception/definition of "need"? And if that gap
> is wide and persistent across many situations and actors or a few
> isolated instances?
They probably haven't brought it up because they didn't think
it was germane to the proposal. I am not, however, saying that
I have an opinion one way or another about that.
> Also, how much thought has gone into justification and evidence for
> the proposition that applying ARIN's (apparently more restrictive and
> less contextual) definition of need serves the industry better than
> the brokerage arrangement?
Keep in mind that this policy proposal, and a good deal of the
NRPM that deals with IPv4, may have little practical value after
IPv4 runout. I think we will probably be rewriting those sections
for quite a while. Plenty of time to argue about which way of
handling IPv4 allocations is better.
Also, if the goal is to prolong IPv4 and create organizations that
will actively spend money in opposition to rolling out IPv6 more
rapidly, then promoting IPv4 brokerages is a superb way to
Never forget that brokerages are ONLY viable as long as IPv4 is.
> _______________________________________________ PPML You are
> receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public
> Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your
> mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact
> info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML