[ppml] Policy Proposal: Expand timeframe of Additional Requests

[michael.dillon at bt.com]

> And the side effects would be terrible.  Almost certainly it 
> would prompt court cases and the like that could possibly 
> produce caselaw in some jurisdictions of considering IP 
> addresses property, thus ARIN might lose control of the 
> assignment authority. 

More likely the caselaw would find that ARIN has the stronger property
rights in the IP addresses and that the ARIN members are merely being
loaned the addresses under the ARIN policies. And the legacy holders
have no property rights at all. In the end, if you don't get your
addresses through the proper ARIN channels, or voluntarily come into
compliance with ARIN rules, you could find that caselaw precedents set
by hoarding cases will remove your right to use your legacy addresses.


> IPv6 really hasn't been introduced.  IPv6 is currently 
> nothing more than a set of technical specifications without 
> an implementation for the MAJORITY of operating systems in 
> current production use.

Huh! I know there are IPv6 implementations for Windows 98 so I'm not
sure where this comes from. In any case, with today's virtualization
technology, you can take a Linux server and install a virtual machine to
run the legacy application. The Linux server can then run whatever you
need to gateway or proxy the communication into IPv6. 

On the other hand, if you are talking about consumer devices, then that
is irrelevant. Let them keep using IPv4 because it isn't going away. If
they want to use IPv6, then the ISP should set up a v6 tunnel broker for
their customers. There will be plenty of customers who either don't
require their older computers to have net connectivity, or who are used
to a regular refresh cycle and will simply upgrade to v6 compatible
devices when they switch to v6 Internet service.

--Michael Dillon