[arin-ppml] 2014-14, was Internet Fairness
rcarpen at network1.net
Wed Dec 24 12:31:02 EST 2014
I could be on board with such changes. Specifically making the size much smaller (I think /22 would be reasonable) and particularly the limit on untested transfers. (1 per year maybe?) As Bill points out, we can always modify it in the future. It would be fairly trivial and straightforward to change /22 to something different, while keeping the other text in place.
----- On Dec 24, 2014, at 12:24 PM, William Herrin bill at herrin.us wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 1:00 AM, John Santos <JOHN at egh.com> wrote:
>> Oppose 2014-14
>> 1) /16 is not "small"
> This is the main problem I have with 2014-14. Start with /24's or
> maybe /22's and keep track of what happens to them. Then use the
> knowledge gained to formulate a better policy when expanding the
> process to larger blocks.
> I think it also needs a limit on the number of untested transfers in
> which an organization can participate in a given time period.
> The text itself needs some cleanup to deal with the more obvious
> unintended consequences, but the /16 boundary is what kills it for me.
> On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Seth Mattinen <sethm at rollernet.us> wrote:
>> Then make it /18 to align with the fee schedule definition of "small".
> I ran a regional ISP on two /18's. You're not getting the concept of "small."
> Bill Herrin
More information about the ARIN-PPML