[arin-ppml] Encouraging IPv6 Transition (was: Clarify /29 assignment identification requirement)

Chris Grundemann 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
make here).



More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list