[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2009-1: Transfer Policy - Revised andforwarded to the Board

Lee Howard spiffnolee at yahoo.com
Thu May 7 10:37:04 EDT 2009

> No. I'm saying that the ones who deliver stateful firewalled service
> to a large base of customers using global IPs instead of private IPs,
> and who deliberately built it that way just in the last couple of
> years did so knowing the score.
> The number of service providers delivering that kind of service is
> relatively small but scope of some of those services is quite large.
> And some of them are hoarding.

Which of these statements better reflects your position?
If an organization can use NAT44, they SHOULD.
If an organization can use NAT44, they MUST.

Do we need a policy proposal requiring NAT44, or requiring 
demonstration why NAT44 can't be used?



More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list