Hi Seth,
Thank you for the feedback.
That is more along the lines of APNIC and RIPE exhaust policy, which allows
a one-time allocation from their remaining pools. I think there are good
arguments for that, but I don't see why a one-time limit is similarly
required for needs-free transfers of addresses already gone from the free
pool.
Do you think the one-time limit will provide some protection against abuse
that would make 2014-14 more palatable to you than the once-per year limit?
Can you describe the abuse that might result from the once-per-year option
that would be precluded by the once-per-lifetime method?
2014-14 is still a topic for discussion, and my understanding is that it
could be modified, so if there is a change that would elicit your support,
it's good that the shepherds know that.
Regards,
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "Seth Mattinen" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2014 10:06 AM
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Internet Fairness
On 12/19/14, 6:31 PM, Mike Burns wrote:
Only a single /16 per year per entity could be received without a needs
test.
I think 2014-14 should be a "one and done" endgame transfer option for
IPv4. That is, sure you can transfer up to a /16 without a needs test, but
once you've exercised that option you can't do it again.
~Seth
_______________________________________________
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.
