We use our 4.10 IPs for IPv6 facilitation including customers who don’t have IPv6 access because their ISPs are lazy and won’t deploy IPv6 so we assign them an IPv4 for Point to point access then they use our network for IPv6. Were also using them for border dual stack NATs, DNS, etc.
We have a seperate need for IPv4 for our and our customers and clients that *do not* facilitate IPv6 deployment. We must use our 4.10 IPs as prescribed and cannot use them in an unrestricted manner as we wish. Thus, we remain on the waiting list for a /22. Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 31, 2019, at 22:23, John Curran <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 30 Jul 2019, at 8:37 PM, Michael Williams via ARIN-PPML >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I am against the policy as written. > > Michael - > > It would be helpful if you could elaborate a bit on your response, as the > ARIN Advisory Council is charged with noting “any specific concerns expressed > by a significant portion of the community” – without additional clarity as to > the reason for your opposition, it is not possible for them to know if the > issue is your particular concern, or perhaps more widely held. > > So: why are you against the policy as written? > > Thanks! > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > American Registry for Internet Numbers > > > > _______________________________________________ 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.
