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

Joe Maimon jmaimon at chl.com
Wed Oct 13 12:54:13 EDT 2010

Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Oct 12, 2010, at 8:55 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:

> Unfortunately, the current state of last-mile technologies being the
> abysmal mess that it is, we basically have not choice other than
> providing for 6rd as an immediate deployment mechanism. As
> such, it should be done with the following safeguards:
> +	Allocations from a specific prefix to facilitate a community decision
> 	to deprecate the technology when it is no longer necessary.
> +	Native deployments should not be shared among the same
> 	IPv6 prefix.
> +	We should make strong efforts to communicate and preserve
> 	the notion that this is a transitional and therefore temporary
> 	solution. That last mile technologies must catch up and
> 	provide reasonable and workable native IPv6 solutions.
> Owen

If the concern is spurring transition efforts, how about including as a 
requirement deployment and operation of properly functional 6to4 relays, 
possibly even teredo.

Heck, toss in lisp while we are at it.

The idea is that if you want community support for your transition 
efforts, in return provide support to the other efforts, even those you 
may not be particularly interested in.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list