[ppml] Legacy /24s

Let's try this again and send it to the whole list this time.
Sorry, Lee, for causing you to get a double copy.

----------------------------------------
J. R. Westmoreland
Custom Computers & Consulting
Email: jr at jrw.org
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: J. R. Westmoreland [mailto:jr at jrw.org]
> Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2007 5:48 AM
> To: 'Lee Dilkie'
> Subject: RE: [ppml] Legacy /24s
> 
> Mack,
> 
> I, sinceI fall into your category, being a very small consulting
> company, would support your proposal whole heartedly.
> 
> Maybe I'll go find the form, and using some of your good wording, see
> about making a proposal. I figure that it wouldn't start much more fuss
> than there already is. <grin>
> 
> J. R.
> 
> ----------------------------------------
> J. R. Westmoreland
> Email: jr at jrw.org
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf
> Of
> > Lee Dilkie
> > Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 9:11 PM
> > To: mack
> > Cc: ppml at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: [ppml] Legacy /24s
> >
> > What?
> >
> > no restrictive RSA?
> >
> > no outrageous $100/yr scalper fee?
> >
> > no justification of usage?
> >
> > You're daft man!
> >
> > A common sense proposal like this has no place on ppml.
> >
> > {pardon my sarcasm, been here too long I guess. But being a /24
> legacy
> > holder in the same shoes as probably many, this would fit the bill
> but
> > I
> > wouldn't hold my breath}
> >
> > -lee
> >
> > mack wrote:
> > > I don't have the time to write it but I would support a
> > > proposal that gives legacy /24 holders a permanent IPv4 fee waiver,
> > > an efficient usage waiver so that they don't have to worry about
> > reclamation,
> > > and allows assignment of an appropriate sized block of IPv6 if they
> > > start paying a fee after some specified date (ie. Jan 1, 2010) or
> > whenever
> > > the regular IPv6 waiver expires if it is extended beyond this date.
> > > With the only contingency that the space be actively used in the
> DFZ
> > > or showing that the space is in use in a manner that cannot be
> > readily
> > > replaced by 1918 space.
> > >
> > > I personally feel that the /24 space needs to be handled
> differently
> > than
> > > the /16 and /8 space.
> > >
> > > 1) Because there are more of these than the others numerically.
> > > 2) Because there is no significant reclamation benefit if they are
> > being used.
> > > 3) Most of these are individuals or small companies that don't have
> > significant resources.
> > >
> > > The use contingency allows for private use in organizations that
> may
> > find
> > > it difficult to convert to 1918 space.
> > >
> > > This would be neutral in overall effect.  It cost them nothing
> unless
> > they want IPv6 space.
> > > It will encourage adoption of IPv6 by these users.  It will move a
> > significant number of
> > > legacy blocks under a policy umbrella.
> > >
> > > This obviously would be for the 2008 timeframe.
> > >
> > >
> > > LR Mack McBride
> > > Network Administrator
> > > Alpha Red, Inc.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > PPML
> > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the
> ARIN
> > Public Policy
> > > Mailing List (PPML at arin.net).
> > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Please contact the ARIN
> > Member Services
> > > Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PPML
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
> > Public Policy
> > Mailing List (PPML at arin.net).
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Please contact the ARIN
> > Member Services
> > Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.