I agree with David. Whilst I wish people would use IPv6, RIPE tried
something similar (although didn’t truly measure operational use) and
failed miserably. They rolled back conditioning the provisioning if IPv4
resources upon IPv6 because recipients were just receiving IPv6 and never
using it...
S
Been distracted by hurricane preps, so my response is a bit delayed.
I agree that a policy requiring IPv6 resources before allowing IPv4
directed transfers have to be "objective" so that ARIN staff can easily
determine if the requirement is being met.
At the low end of my proposal, the receiv
Those are nice words, but I don't see how ARIN can measure ”a real
commitment that organization is doing its part,” at least for most
organizations. It is possible for some organizations, especially those
that have subjected themselves to public measurement, but I don't think it
is fair, or good p
I think it is possible that many organizations are or will be fully invested in
ipv6 but will announce little or none of it to the Internet at large. Most of
my customers don’t announce most of their internal IPv4 networks and I can see
no reason why they wouldn’t do the same with IPv6. So I d
Thanks Owen for the great inputs.
I would say that probably nobody would expect a 100% deployment in minimal
details and in every device but rather a prove that it has been deployed,
is being routed and used. In other words a real commitment that
organization is doing its part.
I think also in a
> On Aug 27, 2019, at 22:07 , Fernando Frediani wrote:
>
> I may be wrong but it looks like that for some people at some point the only
> thing that matters is the sensation someone may be trying to tell them how to
> do things than if IPv6 should be deployed or not.
> Right, how long more wi
I may be wrong but it looks like that for some people at some point the
only thing that matters is the sensation someone may be trying to tell
them how to do things than if IPv6 should be deployed or not.
Right, how long more will we be in this back and forth of "I know I have
to deploy IPv6 but
In 2007, we still had /8's to assign to RIR's, and a free pool at ARIN.
No one wanted to be the first to deploy IPv6. I would have never done it
myself if it was not for the US Federal Government requirement to have all
networks (including contractor networks at NASA) speaking IPv6 in 2008. A
l
> hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote :
> I noticed this item from 7 May 2007 that I think would support my suggestion:
Unless I have been caught in a time warp, the current year is 2019. In 2007,
one could still argue that IPv6 would be deployed "in the next 2 to 3 years".
I propose to split ARIN in t
> On Aug 27, 2019, at 12:06 , hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote:
>
> There has been quite a bit of discussion of the proposals to eliminate the
> wait list by sending freed space to the 4.4 and 4.10 space, and eliminating
> the waiting list. I have generally been in favor of this since 4.10 space
I noticed this item from 7 May 2007 that I think would support my
suggestion:
WHEREAS, community access to Internet Protocol (IP) numbering
Resources has proved essential to the successful growth of the Internet;
and,
WHEREAS, ongoing community access to Internet Protocol version 4
> David Farmer wrote :
> I'm sure you have heard of the proverb, "you can lead a horse to water, but
> you can’t make him
> drink." It seems to me that you are trying to force the horses to drink the
> IPv6 water.
Sounds more like trying to shove it down the throat to me.
> The US Government tr
On 27 Aug 2019, at 5:26 PM, David Farmer
mailto:far...@umn.edu>> wrote:
...
The US Government tried to force it's departments to do IPv6 most of them did
it, but many promptly turned it off after passing the tests.
David -
While not taking any position on the proposed policy change, I would lik
On 8/27/19 2:26 PM, David Farmer wrote:
> You can try to force people to deploy IPv6 to get more IPv4, but many of
> them won't use it and will promptly turn it off after they have the IPv4
> they are looking for. It seems illogical, but it has and will happen
> again.
If nothing else, it gets
I'm sure you have heard of the proverb, ”you can lead a horse to water, but
you can’t make him drink.” It seems to me that you are trying to force the
horses to drink the IPv6 water.
The US Government tried to force it's departments to do IPv6 most of them
did it, but many promptly turned it off a
I also feel that an allocation is insufficient - IPv6 should actually be
routed and in use first.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Ma
Hello Albert
Initially it sounds interesting discussion to have.
My suggestion to you is to skip this part to just have an IPv6
allocation as in my view does little or no much practical difference.
Instead the second scenario that you mentioned seems much more
reasonable at the stage we find o
There has been quite a bit of discussion of the proposals to eliminate the
wait list by sending freed space to the 4.4 and 4.10 space, and
eliminating the waiting list. I have generally been in favor of this
since 4.10 space has a requirement to have/use IPv6 which I think is
something that we
18 matches
Mail list logo
