<!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 6.5.7654.12">
<TITLE>RE: [arin-ppml]DraftPolicy 2009-1: TransferPolicy (UsingtheEmergencyPDP)</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Kevin,<BR>
<BR>
Please, briefly, explain to me your perspective.<BR>
If not a transfer policy, or market if you insist, what then?<BR>
<BR>
What is your vision of how the community would move forward from here....through IANA free pool exhaustion, through RIR exhaustion....<BR>
What do people who consider that they need IPv4 addresses do when they run out....what do people do when they consider IPv6 too risky to their performance (business) or business plan?<BR>
<BR>
What exactly do you propose ARIN and all those needing addresses do?<BR>
<BR>
I'm not trying to be provocative, I'm really interested. I've seen you express at length why a transfer market is no good. Expose your thinking on what happens going forward.<BR>
<BR>
Bill Darte<BR>
ARIN AC<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net on behalf of Kevin Kargel<BR>
Sent: Thu 3/26/2009 7:35 PM<BR>
To: ppml@arin.net<BR>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml]DraftPolicy 2009-1: TransferPolicy (UsingtheEmergencyPDP)<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
> -----Original Message-----<BR>
> From: arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net [<A HREF="mailto:arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net">mailto:arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net</A>] On<BR>
> Behalf Of John Schnizlein<BR>
> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 5:09 PM<BR>
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt<BR>
> Cc: ppml@arin.net<BR>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml]DraftPolicy 2009-1: TransferPolicy<BR>
> (UsingtheEmergencyPDP)<BR>
><BR>
> Are you actually saying you think that creating these tunnels, with<BR>
> the side effect of reliance on a third party for security and<BR>
> stability, not to mention the profit of the party providing service,<BR>
> is better for the Internet than transferring an address to the party<BR>
> that wants to reach the (legacy) IPv4-only hosts that will remain on<BR>
> the Internet for some time?<BR>
><BR>
> Really?<BR>
><BR>
Yes, absolutely. There are tunnels already in existence and working. The<BR>
cost is much less and the harm is nonexistent. There is a legitimate market<BR>
those wanting to reap instant profits can get in to. Go for the v4-v6<BR>
Gateway service market. Oh wait, I forgot, Enterprise class routers like<BR>
Cisco already do this automatically.<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>