[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-176 Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers

[Milton L Mueller]

> -----Original Message-----
> I'm wondering if it's possible to provide an idea of what a reasonable
> IPv4 usage forecast for 60 months in the future looks like? With things

[Milton L Mueller] I am wondering what a 24 month forecast looks like. 

If you find 2 years acceptable and 5 years unacceptable, can you tell me where the line is drawn? Scientifically? Is 3 years ok with you? Two and a half? Four? Why not one year? On what basis are you choosing one or the other? These are not rhetorical questions. I'd really like to know. I frankly don't think you, or anyone on this list can provide a solid, scientifically grounded basis for any one of those time periods. 

What you all seem to be forgetting is that the needs demonstrations ARIN is accustomed to are based on free-pool allocations. 
But free-pool allocations don't involve commitments of money. When acquiring durable assets and making outlays, one approaches IP addresses in a different manner, one MUST look at a longer term horizon. 

Besides, <humor> the Soviets and Chinese always relied on five year plans, why does ARIN find them unacceptable? It seems uncharacteristic of it. </humor>