[arin-ppml] 2014-14, was Internet Fairness

[William Herrin]

On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 8:03 PM, Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net> wrote:
> I'm not in favor of linking the fee categories to number policy.  The fees
> and its categories are under the control of the board; number policy is
> under control of the Internet community via the PDP.  I believe the board's
> actions, to adjust fees, should not cause changes with number policy.

Agreed. Over the course of this discussion I've heard a number of
preposterous arguments for why address blocks large enough to support
tens of thousands of customers and employees should be deemed "small."
The arguments have nothing to do with any rational definition of small
and everything to do with the inadequate support for waiving the needs
basis tests for anything "large."

Folks, I want to see us move away from needs testing too, but you're
shooting yourselves in the foot here. It looks to me like there's real
support for allowing it in the /22 and /24 neighborhoods. Not a
perfect consensus but something approaching it. And if history is a
guide (I'm looking at the /24 minimum assignments) success with a
cautious approach offers a 2 to 3 year path to throwing the gates wide
open.

You can argue for /16 and /18 until you're blue in the face and get
nowhere, ever, but accepting /22 puts you on a timer until /16 becomes
inevitable.

Be smart.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
May I solve your unusual networking challenges?