Thanks for the clarifications. In that context, assuming a new entrant is deploying IPv6, wouldn't the current policy allow them to request allocations to support that deployment. It specifically mentions needs like dual-stacked nameservers and various IPv4 life extension solutions. If a new entrant *isn't* deploying IPv6 from the start, do we really want to support them with a free pool allocation? For any needs beyond those described in the policy, there's the transfer market. I don't know that I have particularly strong feelings either way, but if we're going to reserve any general use pool at all rather than simply handing it all out to meet current need, I think it's better to tie it to demonstrated IPv6 deployment.
Scott -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Spears, Christopher M. Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 10:21 AM To: Hadenfeldt, Andrew C Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Transition /10 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 _______________________________________________ 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.
