<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div>I'm in favour of IPv4 running out faster than my cup of red tea in the morning. It'll be more expensive for aftermarket purchase then, pushing further to offload as much traffic as possible onto IPv6.</div><div><br></div><div>I think at this point, trying to get everyone on IPv6 is about as <span class="gmail-Asgive gmail-ng" style="border-style:none;background:none">good</span> as trying to get everyone on DHCP instead of legacy BOOTP or static configuration.</div><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><font color="#000000" face="arial, sans-serif"><br><b>--</b><br></font><div><font color="#000000" face="arial, sans-serif">Best Regards</font></div><div><font color="#000000" face="arial, sans-serif">Daryll Swer</font></div><div><font color="#000000" face="arial, sans-serif">Website: <a href="https://l.shortlink.es/l/4e6994a80919f40bb05dbee5c002be60e84f00c4?u=2153471" target="_blank">daryllswer.com</a></font></div></div></div></div><br></div><br><img width="0" height="0" class="mailtrack-img" alt="" style="display:flex" src="https://mailtrack.io/trace/mail/2f0bf541df4189b103b976dd27f7cf8b564175f4.png?u=2153471"><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, 25 Sept 2026 at 12:03, Quantum <<a href="mailto:arin@quantum5.ca">arin@quantum5.ca</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><u></u>
<div>
<p>Hi,</p>
<div>On 2026-09-24 22:38, Daryll Swer wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="auto">> <span style="font-size:inherit;word-spacing:1px">Further, any belief
that ARIN is likely to be a continuing source of IPv4
addresses is ill-advised at best. Move on to IPv6. It’s long
overdue. </span></div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">+1</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">I still see way too much effort, energy, time and
money spent on: IPv4. Instead of rolling out IPv6.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I agree with you, actually. Why is ARIN spending all this effort,
energy, time, and money trying to add new restrictions to the IPv4
waiting list in this policy proposal? Recall the specific wording
this policy is inserting:</p>
<p>
</p><blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Out-of-Region Usage Justification may not be used to receive IPv4 address space from the ARIN Waiting List (4.1.8), the Micro-allocation Pool (4.4), or the Dedicated IPv4 Block to Facilitate IPv6 Deployment (4.10).
Any organization already on the Waiting List at the time this policy is implemented will be exempted and shall remain eligible under the rules in effect at the time of its placement on the Waiting List.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p></p>
<p>Why is this change even necessary? Why are we slapping a
restriction on IPv4 justifications this late in the game? Why are
we rearranging the deck chairs on a sinking ship? This is but one
of the reasons why I am opposed to the policy.</p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="auto">Of course we need v4, but come on: why aren't we
spending as much time and effort, <b>collectively</b>, with
464xlat and MAP-T, instead?</div>
</blockquote>
<p>You are asking the right questions about the IPv6 transition. You
should know that this policy proposal makes it more difficult
also.</p>
<p>Consider the case where you are happily using IPv6 from ARIN
out-of-region and want to deploy 464XLAT or MAP-T to ensure you
can access legacy IPv4 stuff, but need a bit of IPv4 space to do
so.</p>
<p>According to ARIN-2025-8, ARIN already rejects out-of-region
requests under 4.10. Even if ARIN doesn't, the section of this
proposal I quoted will forbid section 4.10 from being used here.
So your only option to get the IPv4 space for such would be to:</p>
<ol>
<li>Get it from the ARIN waiting list; or</li>
<li>Buy it from an IPv4 broker.</li>
</ol>
<p>The recommended draft policy ARIN-2025-3 will close off the first
avenue, which makes it harder to do IPv6 transition.</p>
<p>So I ask again, why are we spending time actively making the
situation worse? Why are people even proposing such restrictions
when they could be thinking about the IPv6 transition? Therefore,
I oppose this recommended policy as written.</p>
<p>Best regards,<br>
Quantum</p>
</div>
</blockquote></div></div>