[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2012-4: Return to 12 Month Supply and Reset Trigger to /8 in Free Pool

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Thu Mar 15 02:12:21 EDT 2012

On Mar 14, 2012, at 8:50 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 7:10 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> I am opposed to this proposed policy.
>> The policy scope applies only to IPv4 resources. For those, it is not a question of how long we want resources to be available, but, how we distribute the pain of runout.
>> Owen
> There you go.    I'll take the pin prick every week for the next 5
> years  over  decapitation in 12 months any day.   Both questions
> amount to the same;  "how long we want there to be resources available
> for assignment" is equivalent to  "how long until runout".

I think it's more like the severed limb every 3 months vs. the decapitation in 12 months if you want to draw that kind of an analogy.

> The idea that the amount of pain will necessarily be the same no
> matter how it is distributed, is just wrong.  The duration of
> exhaustion cannot be considered independent of other factors related
> to the amount of "pain",  such as more time and opportunity to
> conserve and promote more efficient use of IPv4 addressing,  and more
> time available for IPv6 technologies to mature and be implemented.
> Increasing the time until runout  by avoiding allocating resources too
> far in advance
> reduces the net amount of pain.

You mistake what I am saying as "longer free pool duration means less pain over a longer time".

That is not what I am saying at all.

I am saying that the only way to make the free pool last longer is to inflict a higher level of pain on some organizations for a longer period of time in order to (possibly) provide a lower level of pain to other organizations for part of that same time.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list