[rpd] Two more petitioners

[Lu Heng]

Hi

I just want to add, the soft landing policy both in RIPE and APNIC region
has created lots of abuse, discussion and multiple meeting discussion,
patching one loophole while creating another--people from those regions can
tell you how exhausting for the communities try to preserve those space for
un-know future comers that might not even need it in the first place.

So no, soft landing itself might not be a great idea from the start.

Although I disagree with many ARIN policies, running to 0 might be a very
wise policy.



On 22 December 2017 at 02:01, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

>
> > 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>



-- 
--
Kind regards.
Lu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20171222/a69fc136/attachment.html>