NRPM 4.10 [1] dedicated /10 for IPv6 "transition”.. I tossed a similar idea around with some folks at ARIN36. Use this /10 to allocate a /24 per **new** Org, and steer subsequent transactions to transfers. That would ensure IPv4 for ~16K **new** entrants in the coming years..
[1] https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four10 On Oct 20, 2015, at 11:05 AM, Hadenfeldt, Andrew C <[email protected]> wrote: > I’m missing some context… RFC6598 (100.64.0.0/10)? > > -Andy > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Martin Hannigan > Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 9:57 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [arin-ppml] Transition /10 > > > Any reason why at this point we shouldn't transition the transition /10 to a > last /N like policy to more align with others? It does seem to be reasonable > and fair. It seems like it was a mistake to not set aside the /8. > > Thoughts? > > Best, > > -M< > This email message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended > recipient(s). Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is > prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender > by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message and any > attachments. > _______________________________________________ > 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. _______________________________________________ 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.
