[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers
scott at solarnetone.org
Wed Nov 6 15:50:52 EST 2019
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
> 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?
More information about the ARIN-PPML