Andrew, So are you in favor of or opposed to 2014-1, which explicitly permits out-of-region use? It sounds like you're opposed to efforts to "do something here" that restricts allocations based on region. Since you think "policies, if they are to be adopted, ought to reinforce the historically permissive stance ARIN has taken", do you favor 2014-1 as written? Or do you have any suggestions for how to improve it?
Thanks, Scott On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 7:30 AM, Andrew Sullivan <[email protected]>wrote: > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 09:02:13AM -0600, David Farmer wrote: > > > We (globally) created a run-out scheme that was going to be uneven. > > There was at least one rejected proposal that tried to even out the > > run-out across the RIRs. Unfortunately, I think we just need to > > live with the consequences of our actions, or inaction in this case. > > > As the problem statement says, I think the real problem is that > > policy is ambiguous on the subject of out of region use. Which > > means there are some in the community that think out of region use > > is outside the rules, as you seem to think. Then others think it is > > perfectly normal and has always been allowed, because its never been > > disallowed in policy. I think we need to clarify that out of region > > use was always intended to be allowed by policy. > > I am normally loathe to say "+1", but I have to agree very strongly > with the above. The impulse to try to do something here is > well-intended but badly misguided. It will have negative side effects > as one tries to write exceptional exceptions for the exceptionally > exceptional case. The reason clichés are cliché is that they express > a truth, and in this case the cliché, "Hard cases make bad law," > applies. New policies, if they are to be adopted, ought to reinforce > the historically permissive stance ARIN has taken. > > Will that have the consequence that some will come "out of region" and > incorporate for convenience and try to corner the market on the > remaining IPv4? Yes. The idea that ARIN can make a policy that will > successfully stanch the well-known problems of speculation and gaming > in commodity markets during scarcity and without doing incidental > damage is, I think, too ambitious. > > Best regards, > > Andrew (I work for Dyn. The above remarks may not reflect their > opinion.) > > -- > Andrew Sullivan > [email protected] > _______________________________________________ > 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.
