[ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Soft Landing

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

I will say that the community will benefit from the implementation of this
policy, and we want to avoid increasing the "cost" on getting IPv4 address
space from the RIR, in such way that the members have less motivation to go
for addresses to the secondary market.

So I see reasons for ARIN paying that cost.

Also if we want to encourage also IPv6 deployment, it is even more sensible
that if audits are required to actually check that, they are not an extra
cost for the requester.

I guess it will be much better to have that defined in the policy. It
doesn't hurt if the community agree in this model. But may be the board
should tell us if it is appropriate or not (in case not, it could be removed
when the final policy text becomes approved).

Regards,
Jordi




> De: David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org>
> Responder a: <drc at virtualized.org>
> Fecha: Fri, 11 May 2007 14:55:28 -0700
> Para: <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
> CC: <ppml at arin.net>
> Asunto: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Soft Landing
> 
> On May 11, 2007, at 2:05 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>> I like very much this proposal and will support it.
> 
> Oh no!  It's doomed!  :-)
> 
> More seriously, thanks for the support.
> 
>> 1) I think "plans" is not enough for the ARIN staff to verify, and
>> is an
>> easy path for people to actually "make up" the plans. I will
>> suggest that
>> those plans need to be checked later on and space reclaimed if they
>> aren't
>> being followed. There may be other choices of course.
> ...
>> 2) One possibility (will also work for 1) is to actually verify the
>> plans
>> and the IPv6 deployment with a 3rd party audit, same as suggested
>> for IPv4
>> utilization. Otherwise ARIN staff may have problems to verify
>> everything.
> 
> I'd ask for input from ARIN staff on this one.
> 
>> Moreover, who is going to pay the 3rd party audit ?
> 
> I would assume the requester although I can see arguments for ARIN to
> pay.  Should this be explicit in the policy or should it be left as
> an implementation choice?
> 
> Rgds,
> -drc
> 
> 
> 




**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.