[arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-5: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension - Last Call

George, Wes E [NTK] Wesley.E.George at sprint.com
Wed Apr 20 14:07:16 EDT 2011


-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Benson Schliesser
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 12:58 PM
To: cja at daydream.com
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-5: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension - Last Call

Hi, Cathy.

On Apr 20, 2011, at 9:44 AM, cja at daydream.com wrote:

> I too oppose this proposal.  Let's be really clear here.  The more appropriate venue is/was the IETF and the IETF turned it down.
It was also brought up in the APNIC region and that region also turned it down. 

My understanding is that the IETF didn't think they were the appropriate venue, and that this was a policy question more appropriate
for the RIR community.  But, I confess: I didn't participate closely in that discussion.  Is there something that we can reference
(e.g. an archive or document) to understand this decision?

[WEG] the /10 version was discussed on OPSAWG - you can see the thread here. I don't recall there being much discussion about
whether it was IETF's purview or not, at least on that draft. Maybe the previous one was different. Most of it was the same things
that were discussed here - will it actually do anything, why can't you just deploy IPv6, NAT's are Evil, etc. ;-)
 http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsawg/current/maillist.html  - look from Aug to November 2010, specifically the threads
titled "heads up", "draft-weil".

Wes

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 6753 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20110420/10e73d16/attachment-0001.p7s>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list