[arin-ppml] Is this more desired than aTransferPolicy? Needinput

[michael.dillon at bt.com]

> Please take a step back and consider the real effects.  Go 
> talk to a network administrator at a mid-size company who is 
> not a technology provider, but depends on technology.

Jo is bang on regarding the costs and complexity of transition.
This is precisely why ISPs need to be focussing on IPv6 and
IPv4 coexistence, not transition to IPv6. While we may be able
to transition our Internet backbones to IPv6 in a few years,
our customers will find the process far more complex and costly
than we do. Therefore, we need to be able to provide an Internet
access service that makes it virtually irrelevant whether the
customer is using v4 or v6. This Internet access service should
provide at least the same capability as NAT with v4.

In this scenario, there is still an advantage to the customer
of transitioning to pure IPv6 because they will restore end-to-end
IP capability, and there will likely be some IPv6 services that
require this for full functionality.

ARIN's policy will have little to no impact on this transition.
There is no point in trying to do anything with policy other than
making sure that ARIN does not create policy barriers to IPv6 
deployment.

--Michael Dillon