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

[Jack Bates]

On 1/10/2011 5:14 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
>> to enable growth of IPv4 to accelerate IPv6 transition and
It doesn't enable it, it enforces it.

>
> There has already been a suggestion(s) to address the dual stack
> requirement and the update that Chris provided demonstrated that. All
> that the petition does is allow this to continue to be discussed and
> would likely include more of the feedback that was presented here and
> still be required to be presented at an ARIN meeting where consensus
> would be gauged.
>

That's nice. I won't be at the meeting, so my consensus will have to be 
taken here, which is why I oppose and why I have placed my objections.

> All in all, I guess I'm puzzled as to why you wouldn't be able to make
> a suggestion on improving this to the point where we move it a bit or
> two closer to the center.

Because I disagree with ARIN enforcing protocol decisions and routing. I 
don't believe anyone should be forced into IPv6. I do not believe that 
deploying IPv6 has made an organizations network more deserving or in 
more need of IPv4 than a network which has not deployed IPv6. A network 
which has specific needs which haven't been met in IPv6 yet could 
technically be considered to need IPv4 more than a network who doesn't 
have those needs and easily deployed IPv6.


Jack