[arin-ppml] Policy proposal 2019-9
michael.williams at glexia.com
Wed Jul 31 08:28:59 EDT 2019
We use our 4.10 IPs for IPv6 facilitation including customers who
don’t have IPv6 access because their ISPs are lazy and won’t deploy
IPv6 so we assign them an IPv4 for Point to point access then they use
our network for IPv6. Were also using them for border dual stack NATs,
We have a seperate need for IPv4 for our and our customers and clients
that *do not* facilitate IPv6 deployment. We must use our 4.10 IPs as
prescribed and cannot use them in an unrestricted manner as we wish.
Thus, we remain on the waiting list for a /22.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jul 31, 2019, at 22:23, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>> On 30 Jul 2019, at 8:37 PM, Michael Williams via ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml at arin.net> wrote:
>> I am against the policy as written.
> Michael -
> It would be helpful if you could elaborate a bit on your response, as the ARIN Advisory Council is charged with noting “any specific concerns expressed by a significant portion of the community” – without additional clarity as to the reason for your opposition, it is not possible for them to know if the issue is your particular concern, or perhaps more widely held.
> So: why are you against the policy as written?
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> American Registry for Internet Numbers
More information about the ARIN-PPML