[arin-ppml] A Redefinition of IPv4 Need post ARIN run-out(was:Re:Against 2013-4)

[Brandon Ross]

On Wed, 12 Jun 2013, Steven Ryerse wrote:

> No I just meant companies their size could possibly justify a full /8 so 
> applying a /12 max on everyone might not work if somebody big applied 
> for something bigger than a /12.

I'm still not following you.

What I believe has been proposed is that if the total amount of address 
space under an entity's control is less than an aggregate /12 then no 
needs assessment is performed to transfer address space.

If the org has a /12 or more of aggregate space, or they are requesting 
space from the free pool, they have to go through a needs assessment.

There is no hard cap on the amount of address space an entity may have, 
only what they have to do in order to get more.

Am I missing something?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brandon Ross [mailto:bross at pobox.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 1:11 PM
> To: Steven Ryerse
> Cc: Mike Burns; William Herrin; ARIN PPML
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] A Redefinition of IPv4 Need post ARIN run-out(was:Re:Against 2013-4)
>
> On Wed, 12 Jun 2013, Steven Ryerse wrote:
>
>> Don't know if a /12 cap would work if a big guy like tmobile or
>> Microsoft applied for a larger allocation. It is fine for most
>> organizations though.
>
> Huh?  Are you suggesting that Tmobile and Microsoft are incapable of completing the needs justification process??
>
>

-- 
Brandon Ross                                      Yahoo & AIM:  BrandonNRoss
+1-404-635-6667                                                ICQ:  2269442
Schedule a meeting:  https://doodle.com/bross            Skype:  brandonross