here.
Regards,
Mike Burns
From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of Scott Leibrand
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2019 2:52 PM
To: Owen DeLong
Cc: ARIN-PPML List
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2019-8 Clarification of Section 4.10 for
Multiple Discrete Networks
I am in favor of this change. We
Agreed. Well said.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 15, 2019, at 15:46, Nick Bogle wrote:
I am in favor of this change. As a company that has multiple discrete
networks that have no realistic way of connecting them, one site gets
NAT64, then another site gets NAT64, but each site has to wait 6 months
I am in favor of this change. As a company that has multiple discrete
networks that have no realistic way of connecting them, one site gets
NAT64, then another site gets NAT64, but each site has to wait 6 months
before getting this capability. No one is going to realistically announce
less than a /
All networks receiving 4.10 space must have IPv6 connectivity in order to
receive the 4.10 space. This IPv6 connectivity can be used to connect
each site to the central CGnat.
Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc
On Mon, 15 Jul 2019, Scott Leibrand wrote:
If an organiza
If an organization runs multiple discrete networks, how do you propose that
they NAT each site without IPv4? Discrete networks, by definition, do not have
internal connectivity between them.
Scott
> On Jul 15, 2019, at 12:03 PM, hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote:
>
> I am opposed.
>
> This space
I am opposed.
This space is to allow IPv6 networks access to IPv4 resources so that the
users on these networks can connect to IPv4 resources.
Current practice for CGnat generally use a block of 4.10 IPv4 resources to
provide such interconnect for many /64 networks. Giving them a /21 to be
I vote in favour as well. It has a direct impact on our organisation as we
keep all our IP blocks under one OrgID and have had trouble getting access
to IPv4 for our dual stacked sites.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 15, 2019, at 14:52, Scott Leibrand wrote:
I am in favor of this change. We should
I am in favor of this change. We should be encouraging people to use NRPM
4.10 where applicable instead of sitting on the general waiting list.
-Scott
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 11:44 AM Owen DeLong wrote:
> Hello, everyone.
>
> The AC is currently considering this draft policy which would provide
Hello, everyone.
The AC is currently considering this draft policy which would provide for
Multiple Discrete Networks to be able to get more than one block under 4.10 for
up to 8 discrete sites within a six month period.
So far, there has been little comment on the list. The AC would like to
e
