I would also like to voice my support for this proposal. It always seemed like
a strange oversight that the fees for my organization would double if I were to
implement IPv6. It is certainly an obstacle for full IPv6 adoption on my
network, and I am glad that someone has proposed this policy to
-
> *From:* ARIN-PPML on behalf of
> hostmas...@uneedus.com
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 21, 2020 8:10 AM
> *To:* Rob Seastrom
> *Cc:* arin-ppml@arin.net
> *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2020-3: IPv6
> Nano-allocations
>
> [
FWIW, I prefer the language proposed by Leif.
Owen
> On Jul 21, 2020, at 10:27 , Rob Seastrom wrote:
>
>
> I would support either your suggestion or Leif’s.
>
> Thank you for your thoughts!
>
> -r
>
>
>> On Jul 21, 2020, at 12:10 PM, hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote:
>>
>> How about
907-868-0116 | w: www.gci.com
From: ARIN-PPML on behalf of hostmas...@uneedus.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 8:10 AM
To: Rob Seastrom
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft
I would support either your suggestion or Leif’s.
Thank you for your thoughts!
-r
> On Jul 21, 2020, at 12:10 PM, hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote:
>
> How about "Downgrades of any IPv6 allocation to less than a /36 OTHER THAN A
> RETURN OF ALL IPv6 RESOURCES are not permitted regardless of the
wyer
GCI | Enterprise Security Architect
t: 907-868-0116 | w: www.gci.com<https://www.gci.com>
From: ARIN-PPML on behalf of
hostmas...@uneedus.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 8:10 AM
To: Rob Seastrom
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended
How about "Downgrades of any IPv6 allocation to less than a /36 OTHER THAN
A RETURN OF ALL IPv6 RESOURCES are not permitted regardless of the ISP’s
current or former IPv4 number resource holdings."
At least this avoids the "Hotel California" issue.
Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Hi Albert,
As a practical matter, I don’t think the NRPM overrides your ability to
terminate your contract with ARIN should that become a business requirement.
Do you have alternative language to suggest that is clear, concise, and
preserves the intent of narrowly boxing in nano-allocations
I have a problem with this language:
"Downgrades of any IPv6 allocation to less than a /36 are not permitted
regardless of the ISP’s current or former IPv4 number resource holdings."
Downgrades include in my mind a return, and thus a downgrade to 0. This
language seems to lock in anyone who
On 16 July 2020, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) advanced the following
Draft Policy to Recommended Draft Policy status:
ARIN-2020-3: IPv6 Nano-allocations
The text of the Recommended Draft Policy is below, and may also be found at:
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2020_3/
You
10 matches
Mail list logo
