Yes. a 10 year supply. Totally reasonable, even if one believes their
growth will never increase. And if they believe it is, more like a 4
year supply. Which, given the adoption rate of IPv6 is not at all
unreasonable to plan for.
Matthew Kaufman
On 5/22/16 7:43 PM, John Santos wrote:
A /22 every 2 weeks is 27,000 addresses/year
A /20 every 2 weeks is 106,000 addresses/year
A /12 is over 1,000,000 addresses. A 10 year supply of /20's, or 40
year supply of /22's. Explain again to me why these are equivalent.
On Sun, 22 May 2016, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
So the world is better off (at least FIB-utilization-wize, and probably
in dollars expended on lawyers and escrow agents) if I buy one /12 that I
can't prove a need for under current policy, instead of buying a /20-/22
every few weeks that does pass the needs test.
Explain why we have arbitrary "needs testing" again?
Matthew Kaufman
(Sent from my iPhone)
On May 19, 2016, at 1:13 PM, Bill Woodcock <[email protected]> wrote:
On May 19, 2016, at 11:52 AM, Mike Burns <[email protected]> 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
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
