A /22 every 2 weeks is 27,000 addresses/year A /20 every 2 weeks is 106,000 addresses/year
A /12 is over 1,000,000 addresses. A 10 year supply of /20's, or 40 year supply of /22's. Explain again to me why these are equivalent. On Sun, 22 May 2016, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > 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, thereâs 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 thatâs independent of Party > Bâs 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 >> âangels-on-the-heads-of-pinsâ discussions about utilization periods or >> parsing the application of free pool allocation language in its application >> to transfers. > > I agree that thereâs a lot of cruft thatâs built up by people who > werenât 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. Theyâre naturally opposed interests. Any useful > discussion of either one must be in terms of the trade-off against the other. > Youâre 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. -- John Santos Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. 781-861-0670 ext 539 _______________________________________________ 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.
