[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-171 Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and legacy resources

[Michael Sinatra]

On 6/14/12 9:54 AM, John Curran wrote:
> Michael - 
>  
>   Can you include briefly why you are opposed and in particular
>   if there are changes to either than might change your view?
> 
>   (This helps proposal originators have a better understanding 
>   of the merits and concerns with their proposed changes...)

Hi John:

To be honest, reading through this thread has been painful, so let me be
brief (at least by my standards):

I do not believe that legacy resources should be treated differently
from the perspective of registry policy.  Note that during the time I
have been participating in ARIN, I have represented two different legacy
holders, one who has signed at LRSA (along with RSA) and the other who
hasn't signed an LRSA (but who also has RSA-covered resources).

I do not agree with the rationale of this policy; specifically that
legacy resources are inhibiting the adoption of IPv6.  Some of the
biggest and earliest adopters of IPv6 are legacy holders, particularly
USG and US EDU organizations.

Much of what has transpired in this thread has basically made me want to
affirm my opposition to 171 and 172, so I don't think there's much that
will change my mind.

thanks,
michael