<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
On 25-Sep-15 14:33, Steven Ryerse wrote:<span style="white-space: pre;"></span><br>
> Stephen Sprunk on Friday, September 25, 2015 3:26:<br>
<span style="white-space: pre;"><span style="white-space: pre;">>> On 25-Sep-15 12:48, Steven Ryerse wrote:
<span style="white-space: pre;">>>> It is time to fix this inequity and removing needs tests would be
>>> a big help to small organizations who really need resources!</span>
>>
>> If they actually need the resources, then a needs-based policy
>> does not present an obstacle. Where's the problem?
>>
>> However, not having such a policy will mean that folks who _don't_
>> need resources can also get them, which makes the (IPv4) scarcity
>> problem even worse than it already is. That benefits speculators
>> at the expense of those who actually need resources.
>>
>> You appear to be arguing against your stated interests.
>
> It appears to me that you are still trying to somehow save IPv4 from
> exhaustion. That horse is out of the barn and gone.</span></span><br>
<br>
My comments above merely point out that your justification does not
support your proposed action: if organizations actually need
resources, then a needs-based policy is not an obstacle, so removing
such will not help them and may, in fact, hurt them.<br>
<br>
It is certainly possible that current needs-based policy sets the
bar too high, e.g. the minimum block size is too large. If so, then
the proper action would be improving that policy, e.g. by reducing
the minimum block size, rather than throwing it away entirely.<br>
<br>
S<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein<br>
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the<br>
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking<br>
</body>
</html>