[arin-ppml] Do people see a middle ground?
Daniel_Alexander at Cable.Comcast.com
Mon Aug 2 00:06:41 EDT 2010
Not too long ago there were policy discussions about rationing the last of
the IP resources allocated to ARIN. Many were opposed to this. The general
opinion was that organizations should not be denied needed resources now,
for something that may be needed later. Then some found a compromise in
Then there are proposals that suggest parking resources for the future
because we cannot be sure what the situation will be two years from now.
These topics were met with opposition against denying known, current needs
for unknown circumstances in the future.
Finally, there are the discussions about rationing the last bits of IPv4
space by defining what technologies are worthy of receiving the last of the
unallocated IPv4 resources.
So a couple questions come to mind.
Of all the methods being discussed, aren¹t they just rationing in one form
or another? If so, they why don¹t we simplify the conversation and ration
the last of the IP space by size and timeframe without all the requirements
on an organization that add to the overhead of ARIN staff? Wouldn¹t the end
result be the same?
Should ARIN be defining topologies or technologies for an organization? Many
argued strongly in the past against this direction. How much will really be
accomplished fine tuning the use of the last 0.4% of the IPv4 space compared
to how the other 99.996% is being used?
Are some forms of rationing more acceptable than others? I¹m curious if
there are some who are opposed to outright rationing but find putting
requirements on technologies as an acceptable middle ground? What do they
feel is the difference or the compromise?
Please let me know your thoughts.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML