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

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.

	As usual, YMMV.

/bill