[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

[scott]

On Wed, 6 Nov 2019, Michel Py wrote:

>> scott at solarnetone.org
>> What do you normally do when hardware or software hits EOL?
>
> I keep it until I serves no purpose.

How do you manage the security problems with software and hardware 
components which are no longer receiving support from either the vendor or 
community?  That must be a pile of work.

>
> I repeat : ARIN will not force me to waste time filling IPv6 paperwork 
> without consequences.

So, if you had an assistant to manage the paperwork associated with v6 the 
next time you are attending to the paperwork associated with processing a 
NPRM Section 8 transfer of addresses from another resource holder, would 
that work?  Or are you a legacy resource holder whose allocations predate 
ARIN, your organization is not signatory to an RSA, and this is the 
paperwork you are referring to?  I am just trying to clarify in my mind 
what position you are taking, so I can understand where the impediment is 
to v6 adoption in your case.

Are you making the argument that legacy resource holders not bound by the 
current RSA should be exempt from this requirement when seeking to receive 
IPv6 resources?

>
> If ARIN wants to go IPv6-only, there will be a nice case in court to 
> split the IPv4 part to another registry. There is no law that says I 
> need IPv6, therefore the courts will hear my case for undue burden.

Fundamentally, it would be the majority of the community who are also 
stakeholders speaking through ARIN in that event.  Such a move only 
happens through reasoned concensus.  Do you forsee the possibility that 
you would seek to transfer in address resources under Section 8, and 
thereby be bound to persue IPv6 deployment?

Scott

>
> Michel.
>
>