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

On Aug 4, 2013, at 10:59 AM, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 04, 2013 at 04:35:25PM +0200, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
>> 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".
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> 	Pragmatically, there is zero chance of verification of operational need 
> 	for anything larger than a /96 in IPv6 space....  So the rules for v6
> 	allocation actually are fairly close to the original v4 allocation policies.
> 
> 	The concept of verified operational need arose in times of scarcity, when 
> 	there was -no- other option.  Those times have past and its not clear to me
> 	why there remains this slavish devotion to having an unlicensed regulator
> 	second guess the viability of a given operational model.

Hi Bill,  

Out of curiosity, about how many Class As would you say had been assigned before that scarcity came to be widely recognized, and the
 concept of "verified operational need" was first articulated? At that time, was promptly doling out all of the remaining Class As on a first first-come-first served basis *not* considered an option? If not, why not? If the prospect of creating an operating environment in which critical number resources were collectively, indefinitely controlled by a relatively small minority of the total number of operators who could such resources to similarly good use (and whose commercial/existential viability would forevermore be contingent on the terms of their access to someone else's number resources) was not considered a viable option back then, what makes it any more palatable now? 

Granted, both the numerator (resource-haves) and the denominator (have-nots) numbers have grown several orders of magnitude over the ensuing years, but how exactly does that matter if the resulting fraction remains broadly unchanged? 

Curiously, 

TV

> 	As usual, YMMV.
> 
> /bill
>