[arin-ppml] Microsoft receives court approval for transfer as agreed with ARIN

[William Herrin]

On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Jon Lewis <jlewis at lewis.org> wrote:
> John saying that a needs assessment was performed doesn't mean that it was
> relevant or what the outcome of that assessment was.  I'm not going to
> speculate about either of those things.  I'm just pointing out that stating
> an assessment was performed but not saying what that assessment found or
> whether it mattered almost seems like John was being intentionally vague,
> perhaps with the expectation that people would assume "assessment was
> performed" = "ARIN approved the transfer", implying a precedent has been set
> when that may not actually be the case.

Jon,

Let me suggest a counterpoint: demonstrated need is a complete and
utter crock. Under the rules we so frequently champion, someone in
Microsoft's position can trivially construct a demonstrated need for
virtually any number of IP addresses.

Suppose, for example, Microsoft "decided" that all Windows updates
would henceforth be performed by first logging the client computer on
to a Windows Update VPN. And a VPN with a large number of attached
computers certainly qualifies for addresses. How many /8's does it
take to cover all the Windows boxen out there?

So sure, John could be massaging the truth and Microsoft could be
circumventing the system. But why would either of them bother to do
so?

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