> Joe Provo wrote : > By all means, go tilt at the class e windmill if you like; > it will only be the fourth time or so, I can't recall.
I was trying to convince Owen to co-author with me ;-) > But it isn't anything for ARIN policy, so feel free to take it up at the > IETF... I would not waste more time there. ARIN is the entity having the squatting problem : we have members who use the resources of another member and they should not. There is precedent, Owen will remember that I'm sure. During the early days, there was no IPv6 multi-homing solution. The RIRs, not the IETF, started to allocate IPv6 PI addresses to organizations who wanted to multi-home, while there was no such thing as IPv6 PI. I remember that the IETF was not happy with that, but it worked : since then, we have IPv6 multi-homing, the good old way that works, not any of the dirty hacks that were on the table at the time. ARIN allocates 240/4 for private unicast to ARIN members. Maybe we could convince Geoff and APNIC to try the alternative way. Long shot, I know. Owen, you allow your vision of "all IPv6" to cloud your judgment. Turning IPv4 off is not going to happen for decades. Michel. _______________________________________________ ARIN-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: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
