Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[rpd] IPv4 Soft Landing BIS

Owen DeLong owen at
Mon Jul 31 17:27:28 UTC 2017

> On Jul 29, 2017, at 09:33 , Jackson Muthili <jacksonmuthi at> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at> wrote:
>> This is my point. This proposal doesn't protect resources, it prevents them from being used.
> It does not prevent them from being used.

How does a resource which remains in inventory at the RIR get utilized while it remains in the RIR’s inventory?

This proposal keeps resources on the shelf at the RIR even though there is need for them to be utilized in the real world.

That is its stated intent.

> It applies limits that allow for fair distribution to *most*
> businesses in Africa. Both the existing and upcoming ones.

No, it applies arbitrary limits that allow for unfair distribution to more businesses in Africa.

If you want to distribute to most businesses, then give each business a /32 only. That will guarantee distribution to the largest number of businesses. It will also be grossly unfair and is admittedly a reductio ad absurdum version of the above stated intent of the policy, but perhaps this will allow you to see graphically how the idea of distribution to the largest number of businesses is a silly mechanism for managing resources.

> Those businesses need, and *will* use those resources. Nothing prevents this.

Noone is questioning this. The question is, when balancing rights and considering the allocation of resources, is it fair to deny resources to party A who has legitimate need for them today in order to keep resources on the shelf for some as yet imaginary party B which may or may not come into existence at some future date.

I realize that some number of party B entities will most certainly exist within some time frame. Certainly the longer you make the time frame, the larger the number of entities. I don’t question or dispute this, either. However, the policy supporters have provided no evidence or factual basis on which to set the target time frame during which these party B’s must be protected at the expense of the various party A entities, nor have they provided any evidence or factual basis to support that the size of reservation or the amount of space being held back for that purpose will meet that time frame.

Absent a clear and compelling evidence-based case for both the amount and the time frame intended, this policy strikes me as grossly unfair.


More information about the RPD mailing list