On Thu, 13 Jun 2013, Jason Schiller wrote:
This is an unfair burden to organizations who require lots of address space for growth.
I lack sympathy for large organizations. I've worked extensively both with the very large and very, very small.
The large can easily afford to dedicate a resource solely to dealing with address acquisition activities. Many of those in this very debate are in these positions.
Smaller providers are most certainly, much more burdened by the needs assessment process.
Actually, Jason, I would argue that treating all comers the same as far as address acquisition goes, actually puts smaller entities at a very great disadvantage to the large carriers, and is a very great competitive advantage to those large service providers.
Should small organizations be able to by a virtually unlimited amount of address if they can afford it?
We talked about a /12 cap, so for the purposes of this conversation, no, that is not what is proposed.
Should a large organization (who can demonstrate need) only be permitted to buy two years worth of address space?
Again, for the purposes of this thread, no change is proposed if the entity has an aggregate of more than a /12.
Never mind anti-competitive behavior of cornoring the market on IPv4 addresses, think about reasonable players the feel the need to stockpile enough addresses to continue doing native IPv4 longer than their competition in order to not loose their customer base to competitors who can offer a better native IPv4 product when you can't.
If that's a concern, I would argue that the larger providers are in a much better position to do exactly that under needs basis than smaller providers would be if they didn't have to comply with needs assessments. Many large providers, since they have easy access to professionals, have been able to acquire much more address space than a smaller provider, not because they actually have more of a need for it, but because they are more knowledgeable of the process and have the time/resources to execute the process.
Which means getting years worth of IPv4 space... Which means we are not going to run out... Which means we can continue to save by deferring the cost of deploying IPv6... Which menas buying more space...
Until the space becomes more expensive than the cost to deploy IPv6, which, despite our desires as engineers, is EXACTLY the correct time to deploy IPv6 from a business point of view.
If you are looking to make needs justification easier then maybe something like: - any org can transfer a single /22 no need required
A /22 is pretty small, but I would support any smaller size without needs basis rather than what we have now, none at all.
-- Brandon Ross Yahoo & AIM: BrandonNRoss +1-404-635-6667 ICQ: 2269442 Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/bross Skype: brandonross _______________________________________________ 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.
