So the world is better off (at least FIB-utilization-wize, and probably in dollars expended on lawyers and escrow agents) if I buy one /12 that I can't prove a need for under current policy, instead of buying a /20-/22 every few weeks that does pass the needs test.
Explain why we have arbitrary "needs testing" again? Matthew Kaufman (Sent from my iPhone) > On May 19, 2016, at 1:13 PM, Bill Woodcock <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On May 19, 2016, at 11:52 AM, Mike Burns <[email protected]> wrote: >> I want community members to understand that this is evidence that the market >> is a natural conserver of valuable resources. > > Help me understand what evidence you see that any market has ever conserved > expensive FIB slots. > >> ...and naturally elevates them to a higher and better use. > > It seems to me that this is the same fallacy upon which inter-provider QoS > ran aground. Just because something was valuable and expensive to Party A, > and Party A exchanges traffic with Party B, there’s no reason why the same > thing would be valued by Party B, who has their own concerns. Thus, the fact > that Party A buys an address block for a lot of money may make routing that > address block very important to Party A, but that’s independent of Party B’s > interest in receiving that routing announcement or wasting a FIB slot on it. > Thus, the money has been spent, but nothing has been elevated to a higher or > better use; it may in fact not be usable at all, outside the context of > needs-based allocation of FIB slots. > >> Thus reducing the actual importance of these “angels-on-the-heads-of-pins” >> discussions about utilization periods or parsing the application of free >> pool allocation language in its application to transfers. > > I agree that there’s a lot of cruft that’s built up by people who weren’t > intent upon using concise language in policy development, and who failed to > remove or update language before slathering more over the top of it. > However, that in no way invalidates the basic requirement for regulation to > defend the commons (global routing table size) against the competing > interests of individuals (more smaller prefixes routed). > > Both are valuable. They’re naturally opposed interests. Any useful > discussion of either one must be in terms of the trade-off against the other. > You’re discussing only one of the two; only half of an inextricably linked > conversation. > > -Bill > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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.
