On 7/9/13 5:57 AM, Bill Darte wrote: > ... the terms are near synonyms, but if anything....sustainable use as it > relates to IPv4 suggests that we intend to continue the use of IPv4 in > perpetuity....which I am against. Conservation as a principle > suggests again to me..that we carefully allocate/assign through > technical/documented/justified need until the resource is no longer > available or practicable....
Not everyone hears the same dog whistle. An agency of government delegated some authority relevant to some asset created by government. Could that agency have meant, when making that delegation of authority, that the delegation included the independent disposal of the asset? I don't think the answer to that is "yes". Is conservation of an asset indistinguishable from the use of the asset? Here "use" means allocation of one or more values expressed in 32 bits not otherwise allocated. A conservation goal could be met by ending allocation while one or more values expressed in 32 bits are not otherwise allocated. In simpler terms, turning off the v4 allocation today would satisfy a conservation principle. It would not meet any definition of a use principle that involved any further allocations, from an all-remaining-to-X-tomorrow regime to one-a-day-to-each-X-Y-Z regime. The principles of "conservation" and "allocation" may therefore be distinguished, and "allocation without a definite end" in particular. I'm sure you didn't mean to suggest turning off v4 today, or tomorrow, for large values of tomorrow, but to distinguish between things that are offered as "near synonyms" it is necessary to ask "how do they differ?" Eric _______________________________________________ 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.
