[address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Clean up)

On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 3:41 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:

> On 8/1/13 12:27 , Tore Anderson wrote:
>
>> * Nick Hilliard
>>
>>  On 01/08/2013 07:38, Tore Anderson wrote:
>>>
>>>> «Fair use: Public IPv4 address space must be fairly distributed to the
>>>> End Users operating networks.»
>>>>
>>>
>>> can you define "fair"?
>>>
>>
> I believe the primary definition of fairness the RIR communities have been
> using is, "only those that have *verified operational need* get Internet
> number resources".


Uhm, if that has been the definition of fairness, then it certainly has NOT
been enforced or used in the past few years. Perhaps never.

It is, as you state later on, one of those hollow "jesters".

Furthermore, I believe that now that everyone's operational need can no
> longer be meet, a state of scarcity, that fairness is doubly important.
>  How does verified operational need provide fairness in a state of
> scarcity?  If someone without verified operational need were to receive
> Internet number resources, presumably through a transfer, and you have
> verifiable operational need that can no longer be meet; it would add insult
> to injury that someone without that verifiable operational need receives
> Internet number resources when you can't.


This is how Internet number resources have been handled for years;
organizations without verified operational needs have received Internet
number resources, some in huge quantities.

One could easily argue that this is one of the root problems with former
Internet number resource handling.

Fortunately, IPv6 came to the rescue.



>  Therefore, verifying operational need for transfers, still provides some
> minimal amount of fairness to those that are not going to receive Internet
> number resources.


If the verification is going to be at the level it used to be, that
fairness is so minimal that you can't poke a stick at it. It is, at best,
an illusion.

While this is a start, just saying fairness is necessary, is a hollow
> jester, without verified operational need or some other replacement
> mechanism to provides the fairness you are saying is necessary.
>

If you want to introduce verification of the operational need, I suggest
you write your own proposal to the RIPE community, so that we can discuss
and handle the proposed changes accordingly.

But I cannot, for the life of me, understand what this has to do with
2013-03, sorry.
-- 
Jan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20130804/3a2beff3/attachment.html>