[arin-ppml] Opposed to 2010-9 and 2010-12

Christopher Morrow christopher.morrow at gmail.com
Thu Oct 7 15:45:59 EDT 2010

On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 3:37 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> My biggest concerns with both policies and with 6rd in general are as follows:
> 1.      If it becomes a permanent deployment, it will seriously degrade end user
>        capabilities and stifle innovation and place unnecessary limits on future

more than not having ipv6 will? more than nat/nat/nat will? I'm not a
particularly large fan of 6rd either, but... it does give the
capability to get v6 to end users (in a decent quality) and today.

Talking to Mark some, and Lorenzo, and looked at ietf work ongoing to
bring operations tools/capabilities they need to deploy v6 in a
congruent manner as v4.... waiting for this will take quite a long
while (2-3 years at best for the standards work to finish, never mind

To be clear, I'd support neither -9 nor -12, but a fix for -12 that
removed all of the 'transition technology' wording and focused on
'subsequent allocation' alone.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list