Owen DeLong wrote:
Then the invisible hand ant its middle finger clearly prefer leasing, so why
all the hubbub about it?
Owen
Because for a long time we had it better than that and we are not
willing to abandon ship just yet, we would like to try to limp it into port.
Responsible stewardship of IPv4 numbers is more important than ever,
with the pressure on and the end still out of sight.
And what we come to accept for IPv4 may very well carryover to IPv6 if
and when it becomes the protocol of the internet. So be careful what you
wish for.
I am personally not in favor of granting network number resources based
upon needs tests that consists of simply planning to lease them out to
actual network users.
These are network protocol numbers, to be used to enable network
operations. Those actually doing and planning such should have some
advantage, some priority, some recourse other than simple market forces,
for as long as possible.
So long as there is a needs tests, replacing the RiR as the distributor
(for fun or profit) does not qualify. Nor would allowing it to qualify
make any sense for maintaining the relevance of our RiR system, indeed
our entire self governance model.
Call a spade a spade. You are a fan of IPv4 leasing for the same
motivating factor as always. You believe it will hasten the IPv6
migration by intensifying the misery of IPv4 users.
I believe that is neither inevitable nor justifiable.
I believe you have not factored the collateral damage properly.
Joe
_______________________________________________
ARIN-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:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
