<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7652.24">
<TITLE>RE: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-16: Ipv4 Soft Landing - asimulation analysis</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<BR>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>a) revise 2007-16 to remove the change in allocation criteria but keep <BR>
the requirements for documentation of transition plans (etc.)<BR>
<BR>
------ I (personally) do not believe that it is within the scope of ARIN's mission to create policy that mandates IPv6 as a business practice in order to receive a requested resource (IPv4), when that resource is available.<BR>
<BR>
b) abandon 2007-16 as a bad idea<BR>
c) do more simulation studies to see how different the answers might <BR>
be given different assumptions<BR>
<BR>
------ It would be easy for me to support this option given that I do not have the capability to do the work, but would be interested in the underlying assumptions that make a material impact..and their practicality.<BR>
<BR>
------ Bill Darte<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
What do people think?<BR>
<BR>
Thanks,<BR>
-drc<BR>
<BR>
_______________________________________________<BR>
PPML<BR>
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy<BR>
Mailing List (PPML@arin.net).<BR>
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<BR>
<A HREF="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml</A><BR>
Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info@arin.net if you experience any issues.<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>