[arin-ppml] Alternative to proposal 125: Requiring IPv6 planning for IPv4 allocations
hannigan at gmail.com
Mon Jan 10 19:56:32 EST 2011
That's not what the PDP says and that's not my experience. And if it
is a requirement we should revisit that.
On 1/10/11, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> You have to publicly post your support for the petition.
> You can send your contact details privately in parallel to your public
> statement of support, but, you have to provide both your statement
> of support (which must be public) and your contact details (which
> can be private) in order for support of a petition to be counted.
> (At least that is my understanding of the process).
> On Jan 10, 2011, at 2:50 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>> The Suggestion:
>> The reason why I am supporting "some" iteration of 125 is that one of
>> it's benefits is that it requires a measure of cost sharing across the
>> board which is likely to end up being much more burdensome to all
>> without something along the lines of 125. Much of the discussion about
>> 125 has been related to cost and demonstrates some of the inequities
>> in our policies. 125 seems to be somewhat of a right sizing albeit
>> theoretically could be a degree or two too far to the right. Your
>> modification doesn't seem to do anything significant other than
>> instill a false sense of security in applicants that are likely to do
>> nothing without some requirements.
>> 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?
>> The Petition:
>> I was about to remark that everyone should be reminded that you do not
>> have to post publicly to support a petition due to the level of
>> causticity of the subject, but I'm unclear if that's the case. I had
>> responded privately to a petition previously and I believe it was
>> counted, but don't recall being told otherwise. I checked the PDP and
>> it seems vague with respect to any requirement to post to PPML. The
>> interpretation that a response to ARIN directly should suffice would
>> be reasonable IMHO.
>> Could someone on the staff clarify that please?
>> On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com>
>>> Given the contentious discussions around proposal 125, I'm getting the
>>> sense that even if its petition succeeds, it'll be too controversial
>>> to gain consensus. So I thought it might be worth posting an
>>> alternative I drafted, and see what kind of reaction it gets. I don't
>>> intend to introduce this into the policy process myself (as I'm not
>>> convinced it's necessary), but if anyone (particularly supporters of
>>> 125) feel that it would be a step in the right direction, feel free to
>>> do so.
>>> I'd also be interested to hear if anyone would be opposed to this
>>> language, and if so, what aspects you object to. And, as always,
>>> suggestions for improvement would be most welcome as well.
>>> -Scott (speaking only for myself)
>>> 4.1.8 IPv6 transition
>>> All organizations requiring IPv4 addresses for Internet connectivity
>>> or services must demonstrate a plan for interoperating with IPv6-only
>>> portions of the Internet. Components of such plans might include, but
>>> are not limited to: receiving IPv6 address space and using it for
>>> dual-stack or parallel IPv6 deployment; or making use of translation
>>> technologies to allow communication between IPv4 and IPv6 hosts.
>>> 184.108.40.206 IPv6 connectivity
>>> ISPs requiring IPv4 addresses from ARIN must demonstrate a plan for
>>> connecting their customers with IPv6-only portions of the Internet, as
>>> detailed in section 4.1.8.
>>> 4.3.7 IPv6 transition
>>> End-users requiring IPv4 addresses from ARIN must demonstrate a plan
>>> for interoperating with IPv6-only portions of the Internet, as
>>> detailed in section 4.1.8.
>>> 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:
>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>> 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:
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
Sent from my mobile device
More information about the ARIN-PPML