Hi Tyler, Very true. Sad that the transition pool is so overpopulated, but that fact was known when the policy was debated. The issue was not so much adding to 4.10 as stashing addresses away from distorting the market and recipient behavior. And making ARIN policy laughable. The needs-test is vital, but also meaningless! But that discussion is over.
Regards, Mike -----Original Message----- From: Tyler O'Meara <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2024 4:24 PM To: Mike Burns <[email protected]>; [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2023-8 - Reduce 4.1.8 Maximum Allocation Adding IPs to 4.10 at the moment is functionally just throwing them away. At ARIN 52 John Sweeting said that 4.10 has a greater than 30 year runway, and I haven't seen anything since that suggests that's changed. I'm not taking a stance on any of these proposals, just wanted to add that clarification. Tyler On Wed, 2024-08-14 at 16:12 -0400, Mike Burns via ARIN-PPML wrote: > > Hi Bill, > > I agree that the current situation is ludicrous. A 2 year needs test > and a 3 year wait. Looks insane to any rational observer. > > As you allude to I think the mechanics would be difficult and I would > rather any returned addresses go straight to 4.10. And in fact, in > addition to authoring this proposal, I authored one to do just that > which floundered a few years ago, but maybe needs some review In the > light of the current waiting list situation. > > I think something has to change. At least this proposal would serve to > clear out the waiting list and return some sanity in that wait times > will be shorter than justification horizons. > > > Regards, > Mike > > > > > Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device > > > > ---- On Wed, 14 Aug 2024 15:58:12 -0400 [email protected] wrote ---- > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 12:46 AM Gerry E.. George > > <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > As a co-shepherd on policy 2023-8 (Gerry George & Brian Jones) on > > > Draft Policy ARIN-2023-8: Reduce 4.1.8 Maximum Allocation, I'm > > > reaching out for additional feedback from the community on this > > > policy following the robust discussions at and since ARIN-53. > > > > Hi Gerry, > > > > The wait list system is not really sane. If your need can afford to > > wait three years to fulfill it with addresses, how does that not say > > everything that needs to be said about its legitimacy? > > > > I'd like to see a concrete proposal along the lines of releasing > > waitlist addresses to the brokers for sale or directly auctioning > > them off as they become available. Maybe the mechanics won't work > > out, but I'd like to see it and consider whether it's a reasonable > > idea after the details are ironed out. Since these are returned > > blocks, auctioning them explicitly would also allow bidders to > > evaluate their reputation history when making an offer rather than > > getting stuck with whatever random block comes up. > > > > In the interests of fairness to the folks who joined the wait list > > in good faith, perhaps limit the first few auctions to folks already > > on the waitlist before opening it up to the public at large. > > > > Regards, > > Bill Herrin > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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. _______________________________________________ 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.
