[ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees

[John M. Brown]

didn't have 200 clients to allocate to within 2 years...


> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Conrad [mailto:david.conrad at nominum.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 12:58 AM
> To: john at chagres.net
> Cc: 'Bill Woodcock'; william at elan.net; ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees
> 
> 
> The ARIN clients?
> 
> On Monday, January 6, 2003, at 11:46  PM, John M. Brown wrote:
> 
> > hmm,   for those that are not ARIN clients, that means
> > they aren't an LIR, and as per 511 of the policy, they
> > can't get space...
> >
> > unless I'm missing something.....
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: David Conrad [mailto:david.conrad at nominum.com]
> >> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 11:58 PM
> >> To: john at chagres.net
> >> Cc: 'Bill Woodcock'; william at elan.net; ppml at arin.net
> >> Subject: Re: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees
> >>
> >>
> >> I would be very interested in hearing the details as to why they 
> >> could not get space.
> >>
> >> Rgds,
> >> -drc
> >>
> >> On Monday, January 6, 2003, at 06:02  PM, John M. Brown wrote:
> >>
> >>> There are multiple ISP's in NM that would like to
> >>> start building v6 networks.  Some are ARIN clients, most are not.
> >>>
> >>> They can't get the space.  We have stalled the system.
> >>>
> >>> Cool apps won't be built without people playing around and
> >> building.
> >>> Like Bill says, this isn't how things are done.
> >>>
> >>> john brown
> >>> former AC member
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On
> >> Behalf Of
> >>>> Bill Woodcock
> >>>> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 4:50 PM
> >>>> To: william at elan.net
> >>>> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> >>>> Subject: Re: [ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Just to be clear - I'm basicly for what Bill Woodcock
> >>>> is proposing, I just
> >>>>> think it should have been done slightly differently.
> >>>> But if nothing else,
> >>>>> doing ip allocations by ARIN to individuals for small
> >>>> or no charge to
> >>>>> encorage deployment will work too. I just want it to be
> >>>> clear from the
> >>>>> start that such allocations would be temporary and not
> >>>> like swamp space...
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm not for temporary.  I think that's exactly the 
> problem we have 
> >>>> now. Nobody's willing to invest themselves in getting it going, 
> >>>> because they know that success means that they have to
> >> start paying
> >>>> someone else for the privelege of using what they just
> >> built.  That's
> >>>> not the way things get done on the Internet.
> >>>>
> >>>>                                 -Bill
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>