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

Hi!

On 01/18/2012 07:15 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> 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.

I believe defining fairness is undoubtedly always a challenging issue.

But as i already wrote: dividing into groups and handling them unequally is _definitely_ an increase in unfairness.

So what i can define in the issue at hand is:
It is more fair not to introduce privileges for such groups than otherwise.

So let's just not make IXPs/ISPs more equal than others.

> 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

Humm - we're talking about a proposal to make a small group special in the mentioned case: We are already in the unholy bunfight (cheers!).

But you asked about the "IPv4 depletion" issue. As you seem interested, as a little hint, just take a look e.g. into the first /2 ...
And there are a lot more issues of that kind...

Regards,

	Chris