[address-policy-wg] 2011-05 Discussion Period extended until 14 February 2012 (Safeguarding future IXPs with IPv4 space)

On 18/01/2012 17:32, chrish at consol.net wrote:
> A fair distribution had to be based on equal distribution. How to define
> this is ofc arguable - but if there's an enduser-need (or, say, 16 of
> them) e.g. for a /28, which is just rejected while a hand full of ISPs
> (together already using maybe several /16) get further /24s - that'd
> just be outrageous.

Hi Chris,

I'd be very interested to hear more on your ideas about how to define
fairness.  I've tried myself on a number of a occasions to come up with
some clear ideas about what constitutes "fair" in an environment of
scarcity, but unfortunately have made very little progress.

Certainly I'd agree that it's very easy to define what's unfair.  That
would be when someone received more IP address space than they ought to
have got.  But fairness?  Not so easy.

Anyway, you obviously have some pretty clear ideas about all of this, so
would you be able to share them?  The second last /8 will run out in the
next couple of months, and we're going to have the most unholy bunfight
when it does.  Obviously it would be much better to come up with a final
definition of fair while people are still quite mellow about v4 resource
allocation.

Nick