On Dec 1, 2013, at 6:50 AM, George, Wes <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>> Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> we have struggled to keep policy agnostic and I don't believe >> that making >> policy to force new entrants to inflict translation services on users is >> a particularly >> good policy choice. >> > [WEG] if by "we" you mean the ARIN community, we're not forcing new entrants > to use translation any more than we're forcing new and existing organizations > to inflict CGN on their users to stretch the IPv4 they do have. You're giving > ARIN policy far too much credit, as IMO market forces around scarcity, > supply, and demand are the primary drivers. That said, we are (via 4.10) > acknowledging that even IPv6-only networks need *some* IPv4 addresses to > bridge the transition gap, and offering them a means to qualify for IPv4 > addresses by deploying a transition technology, and we're agnostic about > which one. Just so happens that at the moment, 464Xlat is probably the horse > to bet on. > You took my remarks out of context. They were in response to a suggestion that we don’t need to solve the current deadlock problem in policy which prevents new entrants which cannot get sufficient space from an upstream from getting any space from ARIN other than space under the transition policy. I do support what we’ve done with 4.10. I was one of the principal authors of what is now 4.10. However, I don’t believe it should be the only avenue open for new entrants to obtain space from ARIN or via transfer. Owen _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
