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

[McTim]

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Cameron Byrne <cb.list6 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Jun 14, 2012 10:13 AM, "Michael Sinatra" <michael+ppml at burnttofu.net>
> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>
>
> +1

what he said!

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel