On Mon, Jan 13, 2020, at 10:20 AM, [email protected] wrote: > There is no reason why a minimal deployment of IPv6, the future of the > Internet should not also be a additional > condition of receiving more IPv4 addresses via the section 8 process.
The reason (as everyone keeps saying) is that adding this condition will increase registry effort, and based on previous history with similar attempts there's no reason to believe it will actually drive adoption. > Lack of IPv6 affects the entire community, Nobody who has pushed back on this disagrees with the benefit of IPv6 adoption. Speaking for myself, I don't see the payback. I think that registry resources could be spent more productively on promotion and assistance. -- Jo Rhett Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.
_______________________________________________ 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.
