<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jan 13, 2020, at 09:06 , Andrew Dul <<a href="mailto:andrew.dul@quark.net" class="">andrew.dul@quark.net</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" class="">
<div class=""><p class="">Happy New Year everyone...</p><p class="">We had a robust discussion on this list before the New Year, but
it was clear that we don't have consensus on the current draft.
Thus to help move this draft forward... I'm proposing a couple of
questions to see if we can find middle ground here to update the
text of the draft policy. <br class="">
</p><p class="">The policy as written today would require organizations who wish
to obtain an IPv4 transfer to complete a limited scope IPv6
deployment.</p><p class="">Do you support any IPv6 requirements on an IPv4 transfer?</p></div></div></blockquote>No</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><p class="">Would you support IPv6 requirements for receiving a block via the
ARIN wait-list?</p></div></div></blockquote>No<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><p class="">Do you support different IPv6 deployment criteria that would
qualify an organization for a IPv4 transfer? (Such as, just
requiring the org to have an IPv6 allocation or assignment from
ARIN) Please propose different IPv6 criteria that you would
support if the current criteria is unacceptable. <br class=""></p></div></div></blockquote>No</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Requiring IPv6 procurement or deployment as some sort of litmus test for acquiring IPv4 resources is just begging for people to game the system in various ways.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>It won’t accomplish a useful policy goal.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Owen</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><p class="">
</p><p class=""><br class="">
</p><p class="">Thanks for your comments on this draft,</p><p class="">Andrew</p><p class=""><br class="">
</p><p class="">=== <br class="">
</p><p class=""><strong class="">Current Policy Statement:</strong></p><p class="">In section 8.5.2, add the following language to the end of the
paragraph entitled “Operational Use”:</p><p class="">Such operational network must at minimum include an allocation or
assignment by ARIN of IPv6 address space under the same Org ID
receiving the transferred IPv4 space. Such Org must be able to
prove this IPv6 space is being routed by using it to communicate
with ARIN.</p><p class="">In the event the receiver provides a written statement from its
upstream that IPv6 connectivity is unavailable, the IPv6
requirement may be waived.</p><p class="">===<br class="">
</p>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">ARIN-PPML<br class="">You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br class="">the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net" class="">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br class="">Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br class=""><a href="https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" class="">https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br class="">Please contact info@arin.net if you experience any issues.<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>