[arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-3: Better IPv6 Allocations for ISPs - Last Call
jmaimon at chl.com
Sun Apr 24 10:13:25 EDT 2011
Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Apr 22, 2011, at 8:47 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
>> ARIN wrote:
>>> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 13 April 2011 and decided to
>>> send a revised version of the following draft policy to last call:
>> I remember when policy proposals where abandoned, citing as a factor
>> the complexity in the proposal. I suppose they just were not complex
> I believe the phrase in those cases was "unnecessary complexity".
A subjective hedge. In any event, I personally believe that any proposal
with mathematical equations fits the definition of "unacceptable
complexity". Can you supply a web page app that will let average folk
punch in easy to identify numbers to produce results in line with the
If a proposal requires a calculator, the complexity involved needs a
fair bit of justification.
>> Do we want the general public to be able to read this NRPM thing we
>> are crafting?
We have long ago failed at that, and the direction we are taking now
will not be making anything better.
>> This proposal does nothing to change a fundamental and longtime ARIN
>> policy defect.
It is very simple.
If you use IP resources as quickly as you can, so long as the
justification passes muster (and there is an evolving latitude involved
in that), you get rewarded with more resources, faster.
As a trivial example:
Suppose you number /30 serial links. Completely justifiable. You will be
rewarded for doing that by using your resources faster and thereby
qualifying you for more of them sooner than if you had uses unnumbered,
/31, or rfc1918.
The only time policy has ever taken direct aim at this was for virtual
hosting. It is not clear to me how policy can address this defect
without taking direct aim at methodologies and technologies, which I
dont consider a good idea either.
>> To the extent you can get away with it, profligacy is rewarded.
More information about the ARIN-PPML