I thought we went through all this when the policy change was adopted. The
issues at the time, as best I understood them, were requests that exceeded the
new limit and requests from organizations that already have large allocations or
assignments. The options discussed, for both issues, was whether to retain the
existing requests, to allow the organizations to reduce their request to the new
maximum (or lower) while retaining their place in line, or to drop requesters
who exceeded the maximum current holdings or who were making a large request
completely. (If they met the new policy, they could file a new request and go
to the end of the line.)
I didn't pay much attention because my company's current size (a legacy class C)
is sufficient, and some day, hopefully in this millennium, one or both of our
ISPs will offer IPv6. (They both have been claiming to have it in testing for
years, but no announced availability dates, last time I checked.)
And mostly, the whole thing was academic because the free pool was essentially
empty and there seemed to be little prospect of any returns that would refill
it, so no one on the wait list, unless they were seeking an initial /24, had any
real chance of getting anything, and even they would probably have to wait a while.
IIRC, the adopted policy was to offer orgs on the wait list who's request was
too large the chance to drop their request size, and remove anyone whose current
holdings were too large, sort of a middle course.
The kid in front of Oliver wants an entire pot of porridge, but there's barely
enough to give Oliver a second scoop, let alone another bowl. I think this
discussion and proposal are a major waste of time and effort and I oppose.
On 11/2/2020 8:50 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 8:42 AM Brandt, Jason via ARIN-PPML <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I find it hard to understand how you can believe that this is "special
benefits".
Grandfathering is a common technique that addresses inequities changes create.
Governments do it and business does it. To some extent, the could be called
"special benefits". However, the context of that is different, some feel the
benefits create an inequity rather than resolve one.
Organizations went through the approved process to get on the wait list to
*possibly* be assigned an address block. The policy on allocations was
changed, however the organizations did everything by the book per previous
policy. The organization is now told that they have to go through the
process again and wait longer. This has nothing to do with potential space
allocation. I am all for limiting the allocation amount in the future.
However, to penalize an organization that has followed the process to this
point is unfair. This also is no guarantee that these organizations will
receive an allocation. More likely, they'll continue to wait.
This draft policy is simply to not penalize organizations that went through
the proper process of what was approved policy at the time. A similar
scenario would be arresting someone who has broken a law, prior to the
offense becoming law.
The question for me is what, clearly, is the inequity that grandfathering
addresses? Going through the process? Waiting on the list and getting nothing?
There were no guarantees made when a company got on the list as far as I can
tell. The process was minimal and I don't think it in itself requires any
special compensation. This policy, if I read the meeting minutes correctly and
Owen's comments in them, doesn't really help with much at all.
I continue to support this policy, not because I agree that larger requests
should be granted, but because the organizations had followed the approved
process and policies.
I'm not entirely certain where I sit on this. So far I haven't seen strong
arguments one way or the other.
Fair enough. Thank you.
Warm regards,
-M<
_______________________________________________
ARIN-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:
https://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
_______________________________________________
ARIN-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:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
