[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 110: Preservation of minimal IPv4 Resources for New and Small Organizations and for IPv6 Transition

[Joe Maimon]

David Farmer wrote:
> michael.dillon at bt.com wrote:
>>> Policy Proposal: Preservation of minimal IPv4 Resources for New and
>>> Small Organizations and for IPv6 Transition

>> Far better
>> to practice tough love and point out that the cupboard is
>> bare, but the IPv6 soup kitchen down the street serves
>> tasty and nutritious meals that will keep them alive and
>> help them thrive in the future.
>>
>> --Michael Dillon
>
> My initial reaction to this proposal was similar to Micheal's.


I find it absurd to behave as if IPv6 is so toxic the only way it will 
take hold is if ipv4 cant be had for money or love.

We should consider the cost of failure, of being wrong, that the ipv6 
soup is stone soup with just the stone.

I dont believe it is defensible to stand up and say that we knew this 
was coming and we still could not agree to spare a bit of space to try 
and protect those likely to be most vulnerable.

What you might call tough love may be interpreted quite differently by 
others.

And if it comes to pass that everyone joyfully switches to ipv6 without 
a backwards glance, what was the harm?

>
> So, if this were limited to providing additional guidance for the IPv6
> transition pool already reserved, I think this could be a useful policy.
>

I appreciate all the feedback.

Joe