[arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2014-7

Rudolph Daniel rudi.daniel at gmail.com
Thu Feb 6 23:30:02 EST 2014


"There seems to be a clear potential for abuse of the two participant rule
after run-out of the general ARIN IPv4 free pool.  Also, there seems to be
a clear potential that changing to three participants will make it more
difficult for some IXPs to get going"

The potential for abuse mentioned to occur after runout is an indication
that something may need to change.
Raising the bar to 3 is intended to prevent the abuse?
I really can't see that being any more effective than what is currently the
the form.
Regards

Rudi Daniel
(information technologist)
784 430 9235
On Feb 6, 2014 8:31 PM, "David Farmer" <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:

> There is no evidence of real harm for either side of this argument, there
> can't be.  The two participant rule is currently in place, and there is no
> motivation for abusing the two participant rule just yet. Since its not
> been instantiated yet, there is no way the three participant rule could
> have harmed anyone, and any abuse of the two participant rule isn't going
> to happen until run-out of the general ARIN IPv4 free pool.  So, there is
> no way to decide this one based on real evidence, and it is hyperbole to
> even ask for such evidence from either side.
>
> I feel I provided a good argument for the proposal and Rudi provided an
> equally good argument against the proposal.  If there are arguments for or
> against that haven't been provided, please provide them for the rest of
> community to consider.
>
> There seems to be a clear potential for abuse of the two participant rule
> after run-out of the general ARIN IPv4 free pool.  Also, there seems to be
> a clear potential that changing to three participants will make it more
> difficult for some IXPs to get going.
>
> This is clearly a judgement call, I think both arguments have merit and
> both have faults.  I think it is fine to come down on either side of this
> question.  But, let's try to limit the acrimony and the hyperbole, the AC
> needs a clear reading from the community and those things don't help.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> On 2/6/14, 14:51 , CJ Aronson wrote:
>
>> Martin
>>
>> Do you have any real evidence of real harm being caused by it being two
>> instead of three?
>>
>> Thanks!
>> -----Cathy
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com
>> <mailto:hannigan at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     Rudi,
>>
>>     Do you have any evidence of real harm?
>>
>>     Best,
>>
>>     Martin
>>
>
>
> --
> ================================================
> David Farmer               Email: farmer at umn.edu
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota
> 2218 University Ave SE     Phone: 1-612-626-0815
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
> ================================================
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140207/8d3bcc92/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list