[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs

[cb.list6]

On Apr 7, 2013 10:31 PM, "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>
> Number resource policy is not the reason mobile phone users are behind
CGN today.
>

Applications were made prior to the g1 launch.

They were denied.

Cgn grew. Squat was deployed.

First hand account, end of story.

I did not handle the application, that was not my job. My job was to pick
the squat and handle the cgn.

CB.

> That's an excuse, not a legitimate reason.
>
> Until fairly recently, there were actually several mobile phone operators
that did not place their subscribers behind CGN.
>
> Owen
>
> On Apr 7, 2013, at 19:34 , cb.list6 <cb.list6 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Apr 7, 2013 7:19 PM, "Paul Vixie" <paul at redbarn.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > ...
>> >
>> > cb.list6 wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Apr 7, 2013 12:49 PM, "Paul Vixie" <paul at redbarn.org> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > i know that it's a popular viewpoint -- many folks feel that the
time for needs based allocation is over and that the invisible hand of the
market is now capable of optimizing the holding of address space and the
aggregation level of that space into routing table entries.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Popular viewpoint go far in a bottom up process such as arin. In
fact, the whole thing is a popularity contest.
>> >
>> >
>> > i said it was popular, not that it could win a popularity contest.
>> >
>> >
>> >> > so i thought i'd chime in: i consider that case to be extremely
unmade as yet. even though i am in most other ways a free-marketeer. as
stewards of a public resource ARIN has always been guided by RFC 2050 which
requires recipients of these public resources to justify their need, no
matter whether these resources are coming from a central pool or a private
transfer.
>> >> >
>> >> > paul
>> >>
>> >> Does that mean you require an update to rfc 2050 to move ?
>> >
>> >
>> > not at all. i think RFC 2050 was and remains correct in this regard.
i'll "move" when and if my mind changes on the matter.
>> >
>> >> I noticed this http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-housley-rfc2050bis-01
>> >>
>> >> ...
>> >>
>> >> Should 2050bis ask rir not do this fair  policy?  From what I read in
2050bis is that is says the rir can make their own policy and 2050 is dead.
>> >>
>> >> Do you read it differently?
>> >
>> >
>> > i read it to accurately explain that not every RIR still follows the
needs based justification described in RFC 2050. it's a description of the
current RIR system. 2050bis does not "ask" RIRs to do anything, it's a
description of what they actually do.
>> >
>> >
>> >> As it stands, speaking from experience, the justification story in v4
and v6 drives design choices. That is an unfortunate fact and negatively
impacts system design.
>> >
>> >
>> > i'm intrigued by this statement. i hope you are willing to share some
of your experiences as to how needs based justification has negatively
driven some design choices.
>> >
>> > paul
>>
>> I just wrote a page of explanation and deleted it.
>>
>> If I have to explain it, you would not understand. And you do not
understand today's data networks at all. I feel bad and outrageous saying
that. But, given hundreds of millions of mobile phone users behind cgn
today, perhaps your question is outrageous
>>
>> Note that att and vz have both rolled cgn to their dsl subs.
>>
>> Yet arin is not exhausted.
>>
>> Interesting?
>>
>> CB.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130407/6f50c44f/attachment.htm>