On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 8:03 PM, Andrew Dul <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm not in favor of linking the fee categories to number policy. The fees > and its categories are under the control of the board; number policy is > under control of the Internet community via the PDP. I believe the board's > actions, to adjust fees, should not cause changes with number policy.
Agreed. Over the course of this discussion I've heard a number of preposterous arguments for why address blocks large enough to support tens of thousands of customers and employees should be deemed "small." The arguments have nothing to do with any rational definition of small and everything to do with the inadequate support for waiving the needs basis tests for anything "large." Folks, I want to see us move away from needs testing too, but you're shooting yourselves in the foot here. It looks to me like there's real support for allowing it in the /22 and /24 neighborhoods. Not a perfect consensus but something approaching it. And if history is a guide (I'm looking at the /24 minimum assignments) success with a cautious approach offers a 2 to 3 year path to throwing the gates wide open. You can argue for /16 and /18 until you're blue in the face and get nowhere, ever, but accepting /22 puts you on a timer until /16 becomes inevitable. Be smart. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected] Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> May I solve your unusual networking challenges? _______________________________________________ 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.
