[arin-ppml] 125

[Joel Jaeggli]

On 1/7/11 9:37 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:
> Why are people saying that prop 125 results in "ARIN ... dictating who
> spends what where", as if that's something special.

Actually a number of of arin members has simply stated that they do not
support prop 125. Rou can rationalize that lack of support however you want.

  Pretty well all of
> ARIN's policy have an effect on an organization's operational behavior.  You
> mean I can't assign a separate IPv4 /24, using only one IP, for one
> residential customer?  That's right -- ARIN's policy requires certain usage
> levels, which changes what might be my preferred default behavior.
> 
> So if the charge is that prop 125 forces an organization to do something,
> sure, that's right, but that's no different than ARIN's other policies.
> What seems to be bothering some people is that prop 125 will make it more
> difficult for some people to obtain IPv4 address space which will force
> looking at alternative solutions (greater efficiency of current space, or
> move toward IPv6).  Well, I can make the argument right now that ARIN's
> current policies result in changes in my operational behavior.
> 
> Frank
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Vaughn Thurman - Swift Systems Inc
> Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 10:25 PM
> To: 'Jack Bates'
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 125
> 
> 
>> Honestly, the problem is implementation readiness and pricing. Vendors
> have often pushed the better IPv6 stacks to their newer gear only, pushing
> the
>> price of deploying into a proper IPv6 layout higher. In addition, not all
> problems have been resolved by most/all vendors.
> 
>> So the policy proposal is to strong arm people into spending money on more
> expensive crap hardware solutions to deploy something that is far inferior
> to
>>  what they currently have instead of letting them wait until vendors can
> work the bugs out and market pricing can come down to a reasonable level.
> 
> 
> Jack, I think you made my point here much more succinctly, and a bit less
> controversially than I did.
> 
> Despite the schoolyard responses, there is a simple point here.  It is NOT
> the business of ARIN to be dictating who spends what where, and prop 125
> does that.  It's simply out of scope.  We don't need to encourage IPv6, it
> is as inevitable as the morning sun tomorrow!
> 
> I feel like we are debating a policy designed to get the sun to rise faster
> and everyone will need to buy stock in "SunComeUpCo" now or else.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>