I can't imagine, as a percentage, a significant amount of voting ARIN members give a crap about what happens with legacy resources.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Herrin" <b...@herrin.us> To: "John Curran" <jcur...@arin.net> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 10:34:46 AM Subject: Re: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 3:25 AM John Curran <jcur...@arin.net> wrote: > On 6 Dec 2021, at 4:59 PM, Jay Hennigan <j...@west.net> wrote: > > If ARIN's fee structure is such that it is financially advantageous for any > > class of network operators to turn off IPv6, they're doing it wrong IMHO. > > The situation is exactly opposite And yet you have people reporting that ARIN's fee schedule offers dissuasion for their deployments of IPv6. Right here in this email thread. How can that be? Don't gaslight us John. Seriously, it's not cool. ARIN fees make IPv6 registration a neutral prospect for only a fraction of its registrants. You've presented something as broadly true that isn't. Those of us for whom your claim is false don't appreciate the insinuation that we've misrepresented ARIN's behavior. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin b...@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/
