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

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Thu May 7 13:06:13 EDT 2009

On May 7, 2009, at 7:37 AM, Lee Howard wrote:

>> 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.
If an organization can use NAT44, they should at least consider it.

> Do we need a policy proposal requiring NAT44, or requiring
> demonstration why NAT44 can't be used?
I would vehemently oppose any such policy.  NAT breaks too many
things and is, in my view, an abysmal hack which is a necessary
evil to deal with a temporary shortage of IPv4 addresses while we
work towards IPv6.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2105 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090507/bfd22a1f/attachment-0001.p7s>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list