[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Extend Experimental Renewal Timeframe

[David Meyer]

On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 01:57:00PM -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> In a message written on Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 01:18:38PM -0400, Azinger, Marla wrote:
> > While your idea of how is should go down would be simple and easy,
> > the interpretation is that it requires more than that.  And it
> > doesn't say ARIN will contact them via a simple email to ask "hey
> > are you using it?". It says the experimenter must apply for renewal
> > with details.
> 
> I will go back to my original query.
> 
> I would very much like someone who has used the experimental policy
> and completed one of these one year renewals to post about the
> actual pain level they encountered.
> 
> I'm not interested in anyone's interpretation, I'm interested in
> actual implementation.
> 
> Have you or Dave, as the authors, been through a 1 year renewal on
> an experimental allocation?  Can you tell us, specifically, how
> much time and effort it took?  What things ARIN staff required you
> to provide?

	I haven't, but I still don't understand the point of the
	one year renewal. That's really not much time to get
	something built, deployed, and to get experience with
	whatever it is you're trying to build/deploy.

	But the main point I made to Mark in Brooklyn was simply
	that it seemed odd to put these barriers in place that
	cause people who want to do something with IPv6 must
	overcome. Maybe it isn't that big of a deal, but it did
	strike me as odd, given, well, IPv6.

	Dave
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20080620/47be2ea3/attachment.sig>