[arin-ppml] Props. 122 + 123 process?
marty at akamai.com
Tue Nov 30 10:44:30 EST 2010
On 11/30/10 8:53 AM, "Sweeting, John" <john.sweeting at twcable.com> wrote:
> Marty, if you go back and read the transcripts from the fall 2008 meeting in
> LA it is explained by the author Alain Durand in his presentation. The poll at
> the time supported this proposal 129 in room, 55 in favor, 0 against. Thanks.
It's too bad that 2010-10 Global Policy for IPv4 Allocations by the IANA
Post Exhaustion which was 40:5 didn't have such an easy go of it, but I
don't think that this thread is a debate about how to judge consensus so
let's move on.
That thread you quote isn't relevant, IMHO. It's already been established in
the previous public policy meeting and following that the policy is flawed
and we have multiple parties here agreeing. I think that defending 4.10 is a
waste of all of our time at this stage.
The relevant thread with respect as to why to deal with 4.10 at all is:
[arin-ppml] Final draft of 2010-13 for Atlanta (Rev 1.55)
That demonstrates the weaknesses with respect to 4.10 in more detail and
includes suggestions to make improvements.
When you analyze the spread of who benefits from 4.10 it's legacy holders.
4.10 pretty much insures that smaller entities are less-likely to be
required to acquire address space on the open market and that legacy holders
are going to have addresses available for medium and larger networks to
purchase/fund through the STLS.
V4 is done, no arguments here. I'm not a legacy holder and my agenda is
mostly cost. If we're going to have policy related to transition it should
have some support other than "there's nothing better proposed" or we ought
to get rid of it. A fix would be better which is why 122 is out there.
More information about the ARIN-PPML