[arin-ppml] Alternative to proposal 125: Requiring IPv6 planning for IPv4 allocations

[Jack Bates]

On 1/10/2011 4:50 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> Aside from completely throwing out the intent of 125 as you did with
> your modification, how would you contribute to make 125 more palatable
> and continue to allow it to have some level of bite, a real result for
> all of the effort that we're going to have to go through with respect
> to IPv6 transition?

I believe the intent should be thrown out. While the officer attestation 
isn't in the policy (wish such things would retrofit into policy), I 
think it should be modified to include attesting that the officer is 
aware of IPv4 scarcity and the org has researched IPv6. Implementation 
status is not my concern, and shouldn't be ARIN's. Insuring that people 
are educated concerning IPv4 runout and IPv6 availability is within 
ARIN's scope. If they *choose* not to deploy IPv6, that will be their 
problem.


Jack