> On Dec 5, 2021, at 7:41 AM, Gary Buhrmaster <gary.buhrmas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 5, 2021 at 2:23 PM Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
>
>> The double billing (had it been present at the time) would have prevented me
>> from signing the LRSA for my IPv4 resources.
>
> There were some community participants that suggested
> that having a formal relationship with the ARIN organization
> by signing the LRSA was good for the resource holders,
> and good for the overall commons. There were other
> members that suggested that signing the LRSA would be
> potentially disadvantageous at some future time.
>
> While I still believe that having a formal relationship is the
> better approach, even if it costs a bit more(*), I do
> understand that some people may feel vindicated about
> not signing a LRSA, or have changed their opinion about
> whether they should have signed, or suggested others do
> so. Perhaps there are lessons to be learned here.
>
>
>
> (*) If the number resources no longer have value
> exceeding their fees for an organization, I understand
> there is a robust transfer market available :-)
The situation is such that the current economic incentives would be most
advantageous to me to preserve my LRSA and abandon my RSA, which would involve
simply turning off IPv6.
Obviously, I would rather not have to do that, but more importantly, I really
dislike the idea that ARIN is once again creating financial disincentives for
the adoption or continued use of IPv6.
Owen
