[ppml] Soliciting comments: IPv4 to IPv6 fast migration

[William Herrin]

On 7/24/07, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:
> >3. Legacy IPv4 registrants don't pay their fair share.
>
> You know, William,
>
>   I and many others have raised this payment issue repeatedly.  [...]
>   Frankly, I think it is a lost cause.

Ted,

As a small proprieter I hold a legacy /23 down in the swamp. As the
infrastructure manager for a multimillion dollar organization, I hold
a recently registered /22.  As the former engineering lead at an ISP,
I held both two legacy /18s and an ARIN /19. I've grappled with the
issue from all three perspectives.

When I wrote this proposal, I asked myelf (among other things): as a
legacy holder, what would entice me to buy in to the ARIN process
without greatly offending me as either the recent end-user or the ISP?
This is what I came up with.


Do you or Owen have any comments about the proposal itself?
For/against/indifferent?

http://bill.herrin.us/arin-policy-proposal-6to4.html

I respect that there will be some difference of opinion about various
elements of the rationale. Issues which are important to some can seem
trivial or even misguided to others. I tried to be inclusive in the
hope of finding some common ground.

I'd like to solicit the folks on nanog for their estimate of the
impact to the routers they manage, but before I do that I'd prefer to
see more input on the policy side from you folks here on PPML.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
William D. Herrin                  herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr.                        Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004