On 25-Sep-15 14:33, Steven Ryerse wrote: > Stephen Sprunk on Friday, September 25, 2015 3:26: >> On 25-Sep-15 12:48, Steven Ryerse wrote: >>> It is time to fix this inequity >> and removing needs tests would be >>> a big help to small organizations who really need resources! >> >> If they actually need the resources, then a needs-based policy >> does not present an obstacle. Where's the problem? >> >> However, not having such a policy will mean that folks who _don't_ >> need resources can also get them, which makes the (IPv4) scarcity >> problem even worse than it already is. That benefits speculators >> at the expense of those who actually need resources. >> >> You appear to be arguing against your stated interests. > > It appears to me that you are still trying to somehow save IPv4 from > exhaustion. That horse is out of the barn and gone.
My comments above merely point out that your justification does not support your proposed action: if organizations actually need resources, then a needs-based policy is not an obstacle, so removing such will not help them and may, in fact, hurt them. It is certainly possible that current needs-based policy sets the bar too high, e.g. the minimum block size is too large. If so, then the proper action would be improving that policy, e.g. by reducing the minimum block size, rather than throwing it away entirely. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ 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.
