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

Martin Hannigan hannigan at gmail.com
Mon Jan 10 18:45:10 EST 2011

On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 6:34 PM, Jack Bates <jbates at brightok.net> wrote:
> 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.


Not one of those bullet points with respect to intent said anything
about enforcement or requirements. I asked you to suggest an
improvement and you're still rehashing version 1.



More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list