[arin-ppml] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (was: Clarify /29 assignment identification requirement)
cgrundemann at gmail.com
Mon May 14 12:41:00 EDT 2012
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 9:16 AM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> On 5/14/12, Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 1B) Move the </40 small/x-small threshold to <=/48.
> Not following your logic here. How does nearly doubling the price of a
> /47 encourage IPv6 deployment? Or did you mean move the boundary from
> /40 to /39 so that /40's fall under x-small?
My apologies. I blame an early morning bit-math (read addition &
subtraction) mistake. I meant to go the other way; </40 could likely
be moved to </36 (or possibly even </32) for x-small end-users.
>> (both of these ideas likely need to move to ARIN discuss if they are
>> of interest and probably should go into the ASCP process if there is
>> support for either/both at this time)
> It makes exactly no sense to discuss ideas for end-user assignments on
> a CLOSED discussion list to which very few end user assignees have
> access. Not if you want public access and public participation anyway.
The ideas are simply not policy based. This being a policy mailing
list I thought it best to point that out, and facilitate a move to the
more appropriate list (which is open to all ARIN members, and to
discussions of fees). Ultimately, if there is any support, I will
submit the ideas to ASCP where everyone will have yet another chance
to comment (in addition to any further comments, or eyerolls, folks
More information about the ARIN-PPML