<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Testing for transition and being close to complete migration at two
ENTIRELY different things. And they aren't under any push or
requirement to give back.<br>
<br>
Personally I've always wondered just what kind of things with THAT MANY
IP addresses is the DoD really doing on the public internet anyway???
For a classified side of things, they can use any address set they want
as it shouldn't be touching the internet. :)<br>
<br>
But that's just my opinion. Still doesn't change the rules or
regulations (or lack thereof). <br>
<br>
The overall problem is that it seems to have been much easier for the
large players to obtain IPv4 addresses. These are the same large
players who appear to be thoroughly unmotivated to even run IPv6 on
their networks, and yet they are the upstream providers for the smaller
players who are getting beaten to death with these policy shifts.<br>
<br>
Just my two cents....<br>
<div class="moz-signature">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; ">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css">
<title></title>
<meta name="Generator" content="Cocoa HTML Writer">
<meta name="CocoaVersion" content="949.43">
<style type="text/css">
p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px}
p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica}
p.p3 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; color: #04ffbf}
p.p4 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; color: #0b04ff}
</style>
<p class="p1"><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></p>
<p class="p1"><br>
</p>
<p class="p2"><b>Scott Morris</b>, CCIE<i>x4</i>
(R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/Service Provider) #4713,</p>
<p class="p2">JNCIE-M #153, JNCIS-ER, CISSP, et al.</p>
<p class="p2">CCSI #21903, JNCI-M, JNCI-ER</p>
<p class="p3"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:swm@emanon.com">swm@emanon.com</a></p>
<p class="p1"><br>
</p>
<p class="p4">Knowledge is power.</p>
<p class="p4">Power corrupts.</p>
<p class="p4">Study hard and be Eeeeviiiil......</p>
</div>
<br>
<br>
John Curran wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:2DA95672-95E1-4915-9657-8516ECB50435@arin.net"
type="cite">On Jul 22, 2009, at 10:42 AM, Chris Gotstein wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
What about the DoD? Weren't they very close to finishing up their IPv6
<br>
transition? Shouldn't some of those blocks be coming back to ARIN
soon?
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Chris -
<br>
<br>
Recognize that ARIN cannot comment on the status of any of its
<br>
members, so that's a question that I cannot address. I will note
<br>
that most organizations that have looked at IPv6 transition have
<br>
adopted a strategy which has both IPv4 and IPv6 (dual stack) in
<br>
parallel for quite some time, and that means that IPv4 resources
<br>
only become available after IPv6 has become prevalent.
<br>
<br>
/John
<br>
<br>
John Curran
<br>
President and CEO
<br>
ARIN
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
ARIN-Discuss
<br>
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
<br>
the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ARIN-discuss@arin.net">ARIN-discuss@arin.net</a>).
<br>
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss</a>
<br>
Please contact <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>