[arin-ppml] Set aside policy?

[David Farmer]

marty at akamai.com wrote:
> 
> 
> On 7/1/10 8:48 PM, "Scott Leibrand" <scottleibrand at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu 7/1/2010 5:45 PM, marty at akamai.com wrote:
>>> Is there _anything_ that people would consider reasonable for a set-aside
>>> policy? I'm thinking about policy for transition infrastructure and wanted
>>> to see if anyone else is thinking about this.
>>>    
>> How much space are you thinking about reserving?
> 
> 
> That's a premature question IMHO. The concept of what transition
> infrastructure "TI" is needs to be hammered out. Probably the hardest part
> of any set-aside policy that will make an impact.

Are you thinking of a future/unknown TI technology or solution?

Or, do you have a particular TI technology or solution in mind?

Personally to some extent I could support either. However, I suspect 
there will be a inverse ratio between the level of vapor-ware of the TI 
technology or solution and the level of consensus that could be achieved 
within the community.

Also the more speculative the TI technology or solution, the more likely 
a policy backstop would be needed.  If we set-aside space for a unknown 
TI technology or solution what happens if one never materializes?  Or, 
similarly if it is a known TI technology or solution what happens if it 
isn't adopted?  How long should we wait for a TI technology or solution 
to materialize or to be adopted? What happens to the IPv4 space after 
that time?



-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota	
2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================