[ppml] 2005-1 status

Bill Darte billd at cait.wustl.edu
Thu Feb 2 09:15:43 EST 2006


My personal belief is that you frame the question(s) appropriately in this
If the architecture of the Internet no longer serves the emerging interests
of the constituents, then the architecture should change, rather than trying
to craft discriminating address policy that preserves the status quo.

On a slightly different topic, with the PI for endsites policy, there is no
stipulation about the v4 blocks that exist in the v6 recipients
'possession'.  You are assuming that that legacy assignment would endure in
perpetuity? You have no expectation that the v6 block would require the
legacy v4 blocks, whether PA or PI to be returned?

I'm not suggesting this be the case...just want this issue to be addressed.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On 
> Behalf Of Owen DeLong
> Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 12:35 AM
> To: Scott Leibrand; George Kuzmowycz
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] 2005-1 status
> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list