On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Adam Thompson <athom...@athompso.net> wrote: > > > *From:* arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net > <arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net>] *On Behalf Of *Martin Hannigan > > "Needs testing" isn't actually the problem IMHO. Its not unrealistic to > ask what someone is going to use the addresses for. Over the last five > years, policy ("the problem") has become disconnected with existing > conditions and vague allowing too much interpretation. Its impossible to > know what need actually is with the current regime. > > I like the idea of not testing /24s. It solves the ambiguity problem. It > will also make them more attractive and the market more efficient by > reducing the cost of the transaction and increasing utilization of /24s > available to the market (legacy). By utilization I mean capturing actual > registrations. > > To be honest, from a market pressure perspective, what is needed _right > now_ is a sixth competitive registry. That would sort this mess out right > quick. > Best, > -M< > > > Martin, in the scenario I outlined a few minutes ago, would the transfer > market substitute effectively for your 6th registry? >
That's a complicated question. The current transfer market is socialistic and artificially regulated. A competitive registry will create interesting reforms. Not just with the needs testing issue or improved legacy address registration, but policy consistency (compatible transfer policy for example`) with other regions and last but not least important even if a residual issue for this discussion, a benefit. Expenses. To answer your question. I don't think so. Best, -M<
_______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
