On 9/18/13 13:25 , William Herrin wrote:
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 3:12 AM, Matthew Petach <[email protected]> wrote:
The concern I have with "plurality" is that that I may not know
with certainty that a new request will meet that definition; I may
intend for it to be split 50/40/10 between ARIN/RIPE/LACNIC
regions; but then upon deployment, discover that the LACNIC
backbone nodes required more space than expected, as did
RIPE, and my split ends up being 40/45/15. Now it's no longer
a plurality of space in the ARIN region. It's easier to plan to
hit a target percentage than try to hit a multi-way ratio given
the unpredictable and changeable forces that impact real
world rollouts.
This.
Sorry Bill, I'm not quite sure how to parse that.
I think you mean "This is the issue you have with plurality", but I'm
just not sure what conclusion to draw from that.
Does that mean you support a simple 20% standard, like Matt is suggesting?
If you and others, concur with Matt on the 20% standard, it would be
helpful to know that for sure.
Or, does that mean you think we should flush the policy all together?
A little bit more would be really helpful.
Thanks
--
================================================
David Farmer Email: [email protected]
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================
_______________________________________________
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.
