<html><head></head><body>I'll point out that at my current employer, I cannot justify obtaining PI v6 space. So I've deployed ULA + NPT in order to guarantee uniqueness.<br>
I see IPv6 allocation making some of the same assumptions humans have made through time (e.g. "640k should be enough for anyone "), so I'm not sure I *should* be able to get PI space.<br>
<br>
NAT, NAT66, NPT, etc. are ubiquitous enough that anyone designing "pathological" protocols that rely on embedded IP addresses (e.g. FTP, SIP, et al.) should probably be taken out behind the shed and put out of their misery.<br>
<br>
Based on that, I disagree that ULA+NAT is harmful to the internet anymore. That ship has already sailed. (Irony: my phone autocorrected that to "failed". How true.)<br>
<br>
Nonetheless, I don't oppose this policy.<br>
<br>
If we truly want to get rid of NAT and eliminate "unreasonable" renumbering costs , there can logically be no needs testing at all. Renumbering even a 10-person office would be an unreasonable expense to me.<br>
<br>
I don't feel strongly about this, but the individual points the policy considers *are* valid.<br>
<br>
Here, have another bucket of popcorn...<br>
<br>
-Adam<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On June 23, 2015 7:25:06 PM CDT, Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<pre class="k9mail">On 6/23/2015 1:07 PM, ARIN wrote:<br /><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #729fcf; padding-left: 1ex;"> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1<br /> Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments</blockquote><br /><br />I am of mixed opinion on this policy. I agree that it should be quite <br />easy for an organization to receive their own IPv6 space. And I was <br />fully supportive until I got to "many smaller enterprises are unlikely <br />to adopt IPv6 (currently perceived as an already tenuous proposition for <br />most users given current cost/benefit)". Since there's still major <br />barriers to deploying IPv6, despite this being over a decade since it <br />should have happened, the amount of popcorn I am able to consume as an <br />observer over the next few years if smaller enterprises find even more <br />reasons to not adopt v6 (such as the one this policy wishes to correct) <
br />is
vastly increased. I like popcorn, and so I'm opposed on that basis alone.<br /><br />Matthew Kaufman<br />matthew@eeph.com<br /><hr /><br />PPML<br />You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br />the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).<br />Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br /><a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br />Please contact info@arin.net if you experience any issues.<br /></pre></blockquote></div><br>
-- <br>
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.</body></html>