[rpd] Two more petitioners

[Owen DeLong]

> On Dec 21, 2017, at 00:12 , Jackson Muthili <jacksonmuthi at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 9:57 AM, Andrew Alston
> <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> wrote:
>>> So yes if you need a /11 you will instead get a /18 but it will allow
>>> 127 more companies to get a /18. Does this sound unreasonable (during
>>> a scarcity)?
>> 
>> Actually – if one company is doing 20+ thousand new subscribers a month –
>> and the other company is doing 500 subscribers a month
> 
> Now you see where you self contradict.
> 
> If your analogy were used when IANA had 5 /8s left, AfriNIC would have
> got none of that.

There are plenty of people who would argue this would have been appropriate.

Note: I’m not one of them, but they do exist.

However, I don’t see this as self-contradictory. An exception was made for
the governance of those resources in order to facilitate a predictable wind-
down for each RIR.

AfriNIC has a Soft Landing policy today which does that very same thing.

The proposed additional restrictions in SL-BIS would reduce this predictability
and waste resources by making them unavailable for deployment in real networks
for many years to come. The last 5 /8 global policy, on the other hand, actually
deployed the resources (arguably more rapidly than they may have been deployed
without it).


>> But – I guess for some this is all about their companies – forget the
>> consumers that actually need to be connections today – forget the fact that
>> we are meant to be trying to increase African penetration levels – TODAY –
> 
> Again if your analogy were used when IANA had 5 /8s left, AfriNIC
> would have got none of that.

Yes… Because we were willing to accelerate the distribution of an additional
/8 to AfriNIC ahead of its need, it got extra space that it would not have
received otherwise.

SL-BIS argues for the exact opposite. If SL-BIS had been adopted instead of
the final 5 /8 policy, then the last /8 AfriNIC currently holds would probably
still be sitting at IANA waiting for them to hand out /20s to each RIR once
every 2 years instead of /8s.

>> forget the fact that while space languishes unused
> 
> Your comment above suggests that the industry has stopped growing.
> Otherwise your comment of space languishing unused is absolutely
> misguided.

No, his comment suggests that SL-BIS will prevent industry growth
due to the limitations imposed on the rate of distribution.

You cannot avoid real scarcity by reducing the availability of the
resource. All you can do is create real scarcity earlier and make
the period of scarcity last longer.

SL-BIS does exactly that.

Owen