[arin-ppml] Fairness of banning IPv4 allocations to somecategoryof organization

[William Herrin]

On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> What Michael Dillon has been saying, in effect, is that organizations
> that can demonstrate a perfectly viable technical "need" for IPv4
> addresses shouldn't get them.
>
> However you resolve such a debate, let's at least openly recognize
> and acknowledge that "need" is gone as a rationing principle.

Milton,

I would call your attention to the allocation policy change years ago
in which virtual IP addresses for web servers no longer qualified as
need. The change under discussion breaks no new ground. At most it
again moves the yardstick for measuring need so that another set of
technically valid ways to use IP addresses (for embedded systems) no
longer qualifies because, as with web server virtual IPs, it's deemed
too wasteful in light of scarcity.

While redefining need based on free market weighting is an interesting
idea which may yet prove useful, it's a much more radical policy
change that what has been proposed in this thread.

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