[ppml] Waiver of IPv6 Fees

[Joe Baptista]

On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, 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.....

i heard they won't give any space to the swamp, at least the addresses
assigned by the old canadian registry.

>
> > -----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
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
>