[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 122: Reserved Pool for Future Policy Development
scottleibrand at gmail.com
Wed Nov 24 19:14:26 EST 2010
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Hannigan, Martin <marty at akamai.com> wrote:
> On 11/24/10 11:53 PM, "Leo Bicknell" <bicknell at ufp.org> wrote:
>> In a message written on Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 01:08:38PM -0800, Owen DeLong
>>> Hence my suggestion that 122 would be more palatable if it set aside
>>> a separate /10 for that purpose rather than raiding 4.10.
>> I would not object to a second /10, but I'm sure I see it as necessary.
> It would only amplify the defects in 4.10.
So do you see the problem as being that 4.10 will leaving addresses
reserved for too long without putting them into use?
If so, would there be additional criteria for giving out 4.10 reserved
space that would alleviate the defects in 4.10 from your perspective?
More information about the ARIN-PPML