<html><head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head><body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><br>
<br>
Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAMfXtQx2hTwQfvRvBEkwT7YyLtXVTJOE7wwQM37cgpP7P8SkuA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Steven Noble <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:snoble@sonn.com"><snoble@sonn.com></a> wrote:
....
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite"><pre wrap="">I would love to have PI IPv6 space and as I have no IPv4 space from ARIN, adding IPv6 will raise my fees. What is the proposal to get legacy holders to adopt IPv6?
</pre></blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
The community has been fairly clear that Legacy holders are going to
have to come into the tent (of ARIN or equivalent RIR) to register
additional numbers of any type (ASN, IPv4, or IPv6). That includes
the new fees and agreements.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
indeed, "legacy holder" is not an exclusive property. one can be a
"legacy and non-legacy holder", and that's what the community driven
policies in the ARIN region have encouraged. if ipv6 space is needed,
it's available. i can see how it might seem unfair to have received one
kind of resource without fee and to then be asked to pay a fee for some
other kind of resource. hopefully the unfairness in getting new
resources for free even though others in like situations have to pay a
fee is even more obvious.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAMfXtQx2hTwQfvRvBEkwT7YyLtXVTJOE7wwQM37cgpP7P8SkuA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">So, the reason for legacy holders to adopt IPv6 is not because
it will (again) be free (or nearly so), but because that is where
one should be.</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
+1.<br>
<br>
paul<br>
</body></html>