[arin-ppml] [arin-announce] Policy Proposal: Open Access To IPv6

[Stacy Hughes]

Hi Everyone, Chuck precisely makes one of my points here.
When I voted against this concept last time around, I felt just like Ted.
 Like, you're not a real ISP or player if you don't have 200 customers.
But there are real ISPs that are small that deserve the minimum allocation
of IPv6 just as much as the 200+ers.
If we want everyone participating in IPv6, we must make sure they can get it
- especially ISPs, large and small.
Stacy

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Chuck Anderson <cra at wpi.edu> wrote:

> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 02:04:31PM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> > We (my org) does not support this proposal as written.
> ...
> > Take the 200 end site assignments.  Granted, we are an existing
> > ISP so we can qual under the "known ISP" clause.  But, IMHO we
> > ALSO qualed under the "plan for making 200 assignments" simply
> > by virtue that WE HAVE MORE THAN 200 CUSTOMERS.
> ...
> > So, please explain in any logical fashion why any network with more
> > than 200 customers (or a plan for 200 customers in the next
> > 5 years) thinks it cannot meet that 200 customer IPv6
> > assignment requirement.
>
> Not every startup company or educational network is going to have 200
> customers, not necessarily even after several years.  Even NoX, the
> Boston/New England area Internet2 PoP, only has ~25 participants.
> Should they not be allowed to get a /32?
>
> [1] http://www.nox.org/participants/
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090529/e9b558cf/attachment.htm>