> 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.
+1 I still see way too much effort, energy, time and money spent on: IPv4. Instead of rolling out IPv6. Of course we need v4, but come on: why aren't we spending as much time and effort, *collectively*, with 464xlat and MAP-T, instead? -- Sent from my iPhone On Fri, 25 Sep 2026 at 7:07 AM, Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML < [email protected]> wrote: > That opposition is specious unless the vast majority of your utilization. > Is out of region. > > For example, let’s say you have a /21 from ARIN. You are using a /24 out > of region and the other 7 /24s within the ARIN region. The 80+% utilization > in region would still count towards qualifying, but the extra-regional > utilization would not. > > I support the policy as currently written. > > 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. > > Owen > > > On Sep 23, 2026, at 12:15, Quantum via ARIN-PPML <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Hi Gerry, > On 2026-09-22 13:21, Gerry George wrote: > > As one of the shepherds of this policy, let me assure you, that the > opposition which has been expressed is in no way being ignored. In fact, > this was considered during our last AC meeting, and this is expected to be > vigorously discussed and hopefully well ventilated on PPML and more so, at > the ARIN 58 members meeting when this policy is being presented. > > Thanks for considering the arguments opposing the amendments to > ARIN-2025-3 at the AC meeting. I am very curious as to what was discussed, > since the AC meeting minutes are not available on the ARIN website. I look > forward to talking about it with you at ARIN 58. > > I would like to bring your attention to the inaccuracies in the AC's > assessment as presented in the original announcement yesterday, which > states: > > The proposal seeks to remove some perceived usage minimums, particularly to > the benefit of smaller operators operating within the ARIN service region, by > reducing the required minimum space threshold to qualify for allowing use of > ARIN IPv4 resource assignments outside of the ARIN region. > *This recommendation has been generally supported overwhelmingly by the > community, although some community members have expressed a preference to see > the elimination of all out-of-region restrictions. The Advisory Council found > that this view is not representative of the feedback overwhelmingly expressed > by the community and that it maintains key restrictions to prevent attempts > to bypass, manipulate, or exploit unintended gaps in this policy to limit > potential abuse, and that the policy is suitable to be advanced to > recommended status. > * > This policy, upon adoption, lowers the minimum IPv4 utilization threshold > within the ARIN region required for organizations to qualify to deploy > ARIN-assigned IPv4 resources outside the ARIN region. > > The bolded section of the assessment does not state the crux of the > opposition during the previous round on August 20th, which is the addition > of clause that forbade NRPM section 9 from being used with the ARIN waiting > list. In fact, during that round of discussion, there was only opposition. > > Instead, the assessment states that the "recommendation has been generally > supported overwhelmingly by the community," with the only opposing argument > that it presented was a desire by certain community members to eliminate > all out-of-region restrictions. While it may be true that the majority of > the community disagrees with that view (including me), that was hardly the > strongest argument anyone's had against the adoption of the policy. > > This seems to diverge quite a bit from what happened in the AC meeting, > since you were there and confirmed that better arguments against the policy > had clearly been discussed. As a matter of public record, and in the > interest of transparency, it would be in everyone's best interest for that > assessment to be updated with the correct arguments against the policy as > discussed during the AC meeting. This will avoid the perception that the AC > meeting was just arguing against a strawman. > > Best regards, > Quantum > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. > [image: 9a3dc81c5638ef758a63e41d4c5665eea79fafd3]
_______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
