[arin-ppml] Support for ARIN Proposal 2011-3

[Owen DeLong]

As the author of the proposal, I am all for removing that clause.

Full disclosure, my day job stands to benefit substantially from
removing that clause.

The clause was placed there to parallel previous policies based on
community opposition in the past to duplicate assignments without
requirement for return. I think this is more applicable in IPv4 than
in IPv6.

In short, I support Dan's recommended change.

Owen

On Apr 6, 2011, at 7:27 PM, Alexander, Daniel wrote:

> 
> There is a discussion on the AC list regarding 2011-3 that I would like to
> bring to this mailing list. Please let me know your thoughts.
> 
> In the proposed language for section 6.5.7 there is a renumbering clause,
> "...provided that they agree to renumber into that new allocation and
> return their prior allocation(s) within 5 years."
> 
> Does anyone take issue if this condition were missing from the proposal
> since it applies to a limited set of cases. ARIN's method of assignment
> should allow for most organizations, who already have allocations, to
> expand into the new policy without a renumber requirement.
> 
> Should those providers that would like to utilize this new approach, but
> are bound because their existing allocations are adjacent to other ARIN
> assignments, incur the renumbering costs and obligations simply because
> they deployed IPv6 earlier in the policy evolution?
> 
> Sincerely,
> Dan Alexander
> 
> 
> On 4/4/11 2:24 PM, "Steve Howard" <showard at paulbunyan.net> wrote:
> 
>> I cannot attend ARIN XXVII, but would like to publicly state my support
>> for ARIN proposal 2011-3.
>> 
>> This proposal addresses issues that we have encountered in planning our
>> IPv6 deployment. We have about 50 POPs (mostly rural) ranging in size
>> from a few customers to several thousand. A /32 is too small for us to
>> use and leave room for future expansion without re-numbering later.
>> Renumbering seems like it would be easier with IPv6 than IPv4, but it is
>> still a hassle for our customers that we would rather avoid. We have
>> delayed our deployment of IPv6 while we wait to see what happens with
>> proposal 2011-3.  It makes more sense for us to deploy IPv6 right the
>> first time!
>> 
>> My hope is that 2011-3 moves forward and we can get a new assignment in
>> time to have IPv6 available to several thousand customers prior to World
>> IPv6 day!
>> 
>> Thanks,
>>  Steve
>> 
>> 
>> ---
>> Steve Howard
>> Paul Bunyan Communications
>> http://paulbunyan.net
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.