[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers
tom at iptrading.com
Wed Nov 6 15:29:00 EST 2019
At 02:20 PM 11/6/2019, hostmaster at uneedus.com wrote:
>If you choose to ignore IPv6, I think it is reasonable for ARIN to
>tell you no new IPv4 addresses for you.
Why is that reasonable? I think it's reasonable that an
organization may choose to deploy IPv6. I also think it's reasonable
that they don't. Those who deploy IPv6 should do so because of the
inherent advantages they feel it provides to their business. Those
who don't see the advantages or feel the costs and disadvantages
outweigh the advantages should not be forced to deploy IPv6,
especially by a registry whose chief function is that of stewardship.
>I personally think it is not responsible in todays world to NOT have
>IPv6 in place in your network. Already, there exists IPv6 networks
>that your IPv4 only world cannot reach.
There are far more IPv4 networks that an IPv6 only world cannot
reach. All joking about legacy technologies aside, I suspect the
current utilization of IPv4 is a tad higher than the current
utilization of Windows 3.1 systems running on 10Base2. If you like
IPv6, use it, and try to convince others to use it by touting its
advantages, not through force and penalization.
I oppose the proposal.
>Paradise On Line Inc.
>On Wed, 6 Nov 2019, Michel Py wrote:
>>I oppose this proposal. If I am ever in a position where ARIN is
>>trying to force me to request or use IPv6, I will sue ARIN for
>>imposing an undue burden.
>>I am serious. If ARIN generates more work for me, I will explore
>>all options to be compensated.
>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.
More information about the ARIN-PPML