And secondarily, what size of un-needs tested transfer would be an
acceptable balance between the benefits of the needs test and the costs of
the needs test?
/24 seems like a perfectly reasonable balancing point to me. I’d be willing
to conduct an experiment on a temporary basis at /20 for a limited time (12
months).
Owen
Hi Owen,
I understand your position and belief that the needs test serves to preserve
space for those with a legitimate and quasi-immediate need, but in my
experience there is plenty of supply in the transfer market currently, and
in any case we are talking about relatively small amounts which can be
sequestered without the demonstration of need.
Thus I don't think the removal of a needs test for transfers smaller than a
/16 will have any measurable effect on the ability to find space on the
transfer market at current price levels.
Thanks for offering your input to my second question. A /20 is an
interesting choice because it appears in policy as the minimum size for some
allocations and requestors who fail to meet that threshold are some of the
corner cases which would be helped by the potential for a needs-free
transfer.
Regards,
Mike
_______________________________________________
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.
