[arin-ppml] the bad 240/4 idea, was Solving the squatting problem

[Michel Py]

Hi Albert,

> Albert Erdmann wrote :
> The impact of squatting, as long as the routes do not leak outside
> are 100% on the networks that are doing the squatting.

Agreed. I also agree that ARIN should not do anything do enforce it (even stronger case as prop-266). And I also agree that it should have been done by the IETF. For the record, this is not for me or my org, I'm perfectly fine with 10/8 for the foreseeable future.

But, I'm reading this :
https://www.internetgovernance.org/wp-content/uploads/IPv6-Migration-Study-final-report.pdf
IPv4 is here for 20 more years. The prevalence of squatting is the very proof that there is a legitimate unmet need for ARIN members to have a larger private space, and I think it is in scope for ARIN to facilitate what members have loudly stated they need.
We are way past the point where anything that would prolong the life of IPv4 is bad for IPv6.

Michel.