On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 7:31 PM, David Farmer <[email protected]> wrote: > So, there is no > way to decide this one based on real evidence, and it is hyperbole to even > ask for such evidence from either side.
Agreed. > If there are arguments for or > against that haven't been provided, please provide them for the rest of > community to consider. Simply this: given the address shortage, I propose that requests to suspend or reduce the everyday rules for minimum use of the assigned block(s) be met with a simple test: is this something which would work today with PA addresses and you can trivially renumber when you grow? Web servers are hard to renumber. It takes a long time for all the open web browsers to get the message. Mail servers are hard to renumber. When they suddenly appear on a new address, all manner of spam filtering issues pop up. Two or three or even five BGP peers are NOT hard to renumber. Only the other peers care and you can easilyuse old and new addresses simultaneously during transition. Use a /29 from one of the participants and pay ARIN a visit when it's full. It's not abuse I'm worried about. Abusers will coax the documentation to say what ARIN expects to hear. And if busted for fraud they'll get what's coming to them. My issue is with the unrecoverable addresses when the perfectly honest "IXP" fails to grow from two participants. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected] 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 _______________________________________________ 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: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
