I strongly encourage my competitors to turn off IPv6, so I hope you convince one of them to do so. ;-)
Rubens On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 2:59 PM Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: > > > > > 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 >
