[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-5: Post-IPv4-Free-Pool-Depletion Transfer Policy
scottleibrand at gmail.com
Fri Jun 24 17:09:22 EDT 2016
Have converted your network to IPv6-only, turned off IPv4, and returned
your IPv4 addresses to ARIN? If not, I think you know why IPv4 is still
necessary, and why new and growing networks still need to acquire IPv4
addresses. And as long as organizations still need to get IPv4 addresses,
simplifying the policies for doing so will save far more time for
applicants (to spend on IPv6 deployment if they want) than it will cost in
discussing the policies. I don't think I can say the same about Titanic
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew at matthew.at> wrote:
> From: "Matthew Wilder" <Matthew.Wilder at telus.com>:
> It's probably a good time to stop the Titanic reference. Sure IPv6
>> deployment has reached 12% globally, but my most optimistic projections
>> show that IPv4 is going to be relevant for a half decade more from now. I
>> think the Titanic sunk in less time if I'm not mistaken.
> Only because we're all here talking about IPv4 policy instead of deploying
>> Transfer policies are going to be the most stable source of IPv4
>> addresses post-depletion so it does make good sense to have good policies
>> for those organizations who need it.
> Organizations who need it are arguably doing something wrong. Why should
> we have policies any better/different than the existing ones? More
> importantly, why is changing the policies we have now a good use of
> anyone's time?
> Matthew Kaufman
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML