[arin-ppml] Future of needs assessment

[Mueller, Milton L]

Note that I've changed the header 

Bill, are you asserting that there is, or should be, needs testing of the way ISPs allocate their FIB slots? 

> -----Original Message-----
> 
> 
> > On May 19, 2016, at 11:52 AM, Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com> wrote:
> > I want community members to understand that this is evidence that the
> market is a natural conserver of valuable resources.
> 
> Help me understand what evidence you see that any market has ever
> conserved expensive FIB slots.
> 
> > ...and naturally elevates them to a higher and better use.
> 
> It seems to me that this is the same fallacy upon which inter-provider QoS ran
> aground.  Just because something was valuable and expensive to Party A, and
> Party A exchanges traffic with Party B, there’s no reason why the same thing
> would be valued by Party B, who has their own concerns.  Thus, the fact that
> Party A buys an address block for a lot of money may make routing that
> address block very important to Party A, but that’s independent of Party B’s
> interest in receiving that routing announcement or wasting a FIB slot on it.
> Thus, the money has been spent, but nothing has been elevated to a higher or
> better use; it may in fact not be usable at all, outside the context of needs-
> based allocation of FIB slots.
> 
> > Thus reducing the actual importance of these “angels-on-the-heads-of-pins”
> discussions about utilization periods or parsing the application of free pool
> allocation language in its application to transfers.
> 
> I agree that there’s a lot of cruft that’s built up by people who weren’t intent
> upon using concise language in policy development, and who failed to remove
> or update language before slathering more over the top of it.  However, that
> in no way invalidates the basic requirement for regulation to defend the
> commons (global routing table size) against the competing interests of
> individuals (more smaller prefixes routed).
> 
> Both are valuable.  They’re naturally opposed interests.  Any useful discussion
> of either one must be in terms of the trade-off against the other.  You’re
> discussing only one of the two; only half of an inextricably linked
> conversation.
> 
>                                 -Bill
> 
> 
>