[arin-ppml] Ending point to point links as a justification for a /30?

michael.dillon at bt.com michael.dillon at bt.com
Fri Jul 30 09:45:40 EDT 2010

> I am opposed to reclamation techniques that step up the confrontational
> and adversarial relationship between ARIN and address holders, even
> were
> it to be essential for continued consumption of IPv4 and IPv6 did not
> exist. I view increasing auditing and mandatory triggers of audits with
> similar concern.
> Expending good will and buy in, not to mention financial resources, all
> for relatively limited return along with greater risks of legal and
> political liabilities is not a good bargain.
> Bad cop is not a character role an organization like ARIN should choose
> to be identified with.
> Incentives for efficiencies, that is where my support lands. Even then,
> I prefer less direct incentives, those that can be spread and carried
> by
> the invisible hand.
> I would support ARIN advocacy for technical standards and features that
> were mindful of IPv4 scarcity. I would also support advocacy for
> technical standards and features that would help smooth migration and
> transition to IPv6. I believe ARIN does have a role to play there and
> not just a passive one. Let them be a voice of the addressing
> community,
> a liaison, to help focus on those concerns in many an arena.
> Joe

Well said, Joe!
I am 100% in agreement with this approach.

--Michael Dillon

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list