[ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives
Stephen Sprunk
stephen at sprunk.org
Thu Jul 5 16:41:08 EDT 2007
- Previous message: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives
- Next message: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Thus spake "Michael K. Smith - Adhost" <mksmith at adhost.com> > That's an interesting point. It sounds to me as if the ultimate > depletion of IPv4 space is not going to be put off to any great > degree by reclaiming the old swamp space. Projections say it'll buy us six months. Even if it's year or two, that's still of dubious benefit in the long run. > And, ARIN has guidelines for acquiring new space based > upon need/justification as defined by previous allocations. > If it's true that reclamation is not going to help us to any great > degree, why not focus our efforts on writing language to > allow entities to use swamp space as justification for IPv6 > allocations, but not provide any particular incentives beyond > that? That's how things work for v4, but it's not how things work for v6. As it stands, all one needs for a v6 allocation is to be an "existing, known ISP" or have a plan to make 200 assignments, and all one needs for a v6 assignment is to qualify for a v4 assignment. Presumably, anyone with v4 swamp space already meets the relevant standard, so what needs to be changed? Can you provide an example of someone with v4 swamp space who _isn't_ elligible for v6 space already but should be? S Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." K5SSS --Isaac Asimov
- Previous message: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives
- Next message: [ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Reclamation Incentives
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the PPML mailing list