On 18/01/2012 17:32, chrish@consol.net wrote:
A fair distribution had to be based on equal distribution. How to define this is ofc arguable - but if there's an enduser-need (or, say, 16 of them) e.g. for a /28, which is just rejected while a hand full of ISPs (together already using maybe several /16) get further /24s - that'd just be outrageous.
Hi Chris, I'd be very interested to hear more on your ideas about how to define fairness. I've tried myself on a number of a occasions to come up with some clear ideas about what constitutes "fair" in an environment of scarcity, but unfortunately have made very little progress. Certainly I'd agree that it's very easy to define what's unfair. That would be when someone received more IP address space than they ought to have got. But fairness? Not so easy. Anyway, you obviously have some pretty clear ideas about all of this, so would you be able to share them? The second last /8 will run out in the next couple of months, and we're going to have the most unholy bunfight when it does. Obviously it would be much better to come up with a final definition of fair while people are still quite mellow about v4 resource allocation. Nick