<html><head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head><body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">...<br>
<br>
cb.list6 wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAD6AjGSDsmfCOiD1MyDQ4hRwZF9cmrGepwU+RbfxXjGAPTNnmg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p dir="ltr"><br>
On Apr 7, 2013 12:49 PM, "Paul Vixie" <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:paul@redbarn.org">paul@redbarn.org</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> i know that it's a popular viewpoint -- many folks feel that the
time for needs based allocation is over and that the invisible hand of
the market is now capable of optimizing the holding of address space and
the aggregation level of that space into routing table entries.<br>
></p>
<p dir="ltr">Popular viewpoint go far in a bottom up process such as
arin. In fact, the whole thing is a popularity contest. </p>
</blockquote>
<br>
i said it was popular, not that it could win a popularity contest.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAD6AjGSDsmfCOiD1MyDQ4hRwZF9cmrGepwU+RbfxXjGAPTNnmg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p dir="ltr">> so i thought i'd chime in: i consider that case to
be extremely unmade as yet. even though i am in most other ways a
free-marketeer. as stewards of a public resource ARIN has always been
guided by RFC 2050 which requires recipients of these public resources
to justify their need, no matter whether these resources are coming from
a central pool or a private transfer.<br>
><br>
> paul</p>
<p dir="ltr">Does that mean you require an update to rfc 2050 to move ?</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
not at all. i think RFC 2050 was and remains correct in this regard.
i'll "move" when and if my mind changes on the matter.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAD6AjGSDsmfCOiD1MyDQ4hRwZF9cmrGepwU+RbfxXjGAPTNnmg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p dir="ltr">I noticed this <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-housley-rfc2050bis-01">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-housley-rfc2050bis-01</a><br></p>
...
<p dir="ltr">Should 2050bis ask rir not do this fair policy? From
what I read in 2050bis is that is says the rir can make their own policy
and 2050 is dead. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Do you read it differently?</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
i read it to accurately explain that not every RIR still follows the
needs based justification described in RFC 2050. it's a description of
the current RIR system. 2050bis does not "ask" RIRs to do anything, it's
a description of what they actually do.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><span><p dir="ltr">As it stands, speaking from
experience, the justification
story in v4 and v6 drives design choices. That is an unfortunate fact
and negatively impacts system design. </p></span></blockquote>
<br>
i'm intrigued by this statement. i hope you are willing to share some of
your experiences as to how needs based justification has negatively
driven some design choices.<br>
<br>
paul<br>
</body></html>