On 06/04/2009 13:10, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
attached you will find a policy proposal we call "Run Out Fairly". [...] PS: Can we refer to this proposal by name and not by number? ;-)
You'll have to forgive me for being suspicious about titles like this. It reminds me a little of the Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea insisting on the word "democratic" being in their country's title, just to make sure that people are aware that it's a democracy - if they didn't already know. I'm curious to understand how smaller LIRs will cope with these requirements, particularly in light of Daniel's statement:
I do not think a change [of minimum allocation size] is necessary here to address the objective of the proposal.
If you're a small ISP, with a low customer signon rate, how are you going to justify requesting a /21 for 3 months usage when a /21 might normally last you for a period of, say 6 months or a year or something? I'm aware that the timescales are such that this period of enforced "fairness" won't be long. However it strikes me that during this period, very small ISPs will end up facing a tough fight to justify a /21 when it's clear from their previous allocation records that their address burn rate is very low and that /21 is significantly more than they would require within the assignment period. Nick