[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-162 Redefining request window in 4.2.4.4

[Michael Sinatra]

On 01/27/12 08:43, Joe Maimon wrote:

> I oppose this proposal, in any shape.

FTR, I support prop 162.

> I believe we should be attempting to ensure that space remains for the
> least served members, including those who dont even exist yet.

If we wish to have address space in reserve for entities that don't 
exist at an arbitrary time N, then we will likely be asking ARIN to 
hoard IPv4 addresses forever.

> I do not believe we should be concerned with ensuring that the existing
> members can continue their consumption rate without impediment.

We needn't be concerned with that.  But we need to be concerned with the 
issues that arise with uneven runout.  We also need to be concerned with 
issues that arise as a result of a transfer market that is underway at a 
time when there is still a free pool, when policies assumed that free 
pool runout would have happened by now.  162 addresses those concerns 
and I support it.

Your concern makes sense in a world where neither IPv6 nor an operating 
transfer market exist.

michael