Remember what ARIN is and their policies, and backwards “grandfathered.” It will not ever be a retired word, will always be enforced for us legacy.
ARIN must and does manage both, it was never as simple as switching over to v6. Somehow we do need to get there, sooner than later. Decades old repetition here with no date or resolution in sight. Do you have a successor, John? You’ve been at the helm a long time and still we are reliant on ipv4 over 6. On Thu, Sep 24, 2026 at 4:39 PM Daryll Swer via ARIN-PPML < [email protected]> wrote: > > Further, any belief that ARIN is likely to be a continuing source of > IPv4 addresses is ill-advised at best. Move on to IPv6. It’s long overdue. > > +1 > > I still see way too much effort, energy, time and money spent on: IPv4. > Instead of rolling out IPv6. > > Of course we need v4, but come on: why aren't we spending as much time and > effort, *collectively*, with 464xlat and MAP-T, instead? > > -- > Sent from my iPhone > > On Fri, 25 Sep 2026 at 7:07 AM, Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> That opposition is specious unless the vast majority of your utilization. >> Is out of region. >> >> For example, let’s say you have a /21 from ARIN. You are using a /24 out >> of region and the other 7 /24s within the ARIN region. The 80+% utilization >> in region would still count towards qualifying, but the extra-regional >> utilization would not. >> >> I support the policy as currently written. >> >> Further, any belief that ARIN is likely to be a continuing source of IPv4 >> addresses is ill-advised at best. Move on to IPv6. It’s long overdue. >> >> Owen >> >> >> On Sep 23, 2026, at 12:15, Quantum via ARIN-PPML <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi Gerry, >> On 2026-09-22 13:21, Gerry George wrote: >> >> As one of the shepherds of this policy, let me assure you, that the >> opposition which has been expressed is in no way being ignored. In fact, >> this was considered during our last AC meeting, and this is expected to be >> vigorously discussed and hopefully well ventilated on PPML and more so, at >> the ARIN 58 members meeting when this policy is being presented. >> >> Thanks for considering the arguments opposing the amendments to >> ARIN-2025-3 at the AC meeting. I am very curious as to what was discussed, >> since the AC meeting minutes are not available on the ARIN website. I look >> forward to talking about it with you at ARIN 58. >> >> I would like to bring your attention to the inaccuracies in the AC's >> assessment as presented in the original announcement yesterday, which >> states: >> >> The proposal seeks to remove some perceived usage minimums, particularly to >> the benefit of smaller operators operating within the ARIN service region, >> by reducing the required minimum space threshold to qualify for allowing use >> of ARIN IPv4 resource assignments outside of the ARIN region. >> *This recommendation has been generally supported overwhelmingly by the >> community, although some community members have expressed a preference to >> see the elimination of all out-of-region restrictions. The Advisory Council >> found that this view is not representative of the feedback overwhelmingly >> expressed by the community and that it maintains key restrictions to prevent >> attempts to bypass, manipulate, or exploit unintended gaps in this policy to >> limit potential abuse, and that the policy is suitable to be advanced to >> recommended status. >> * >> This policy, upon adoption, lowers the minimum IPv4 utilization threshold >> within the ARIN region required for organizations to qualify to deploy >> ARIN-assigned IPv4 resources outside the ARIN region. >> >> The bolded section of the assessment does not state the crux of the >> opposition during the previous round on August 20th, which is the addition >> of clause that forbade NRPM section 9 from being used with the ARIN waiting >> list. In fact, during that round of discussion, there was only opposition. >> >> Instead, the assessment states that the "recommendation has been >> generally supported overwhelmingly by the community," with the only >> opposing argument that it presented was a desire by certain community >> members to eliminate all out-of-region restrictions. While it may be true >> that the majority of the community disagrees with that view (including me), >> that was hardly the strongest argument anyone's had against the adoption of >> the policy. >> >> This seems to diverge quite a bit from what happened in the AC meeting, >> since you were there and confirmed that better arguments against the policy >> had clearly been discussed. As a matter of public record, and in the >> interest of transparency, it would be in everyone's best interest for that >> assessment to be updated with the correct arguments against the policy as >> discussed during the AC meeting. This will avoid the perception that the AC >> meeting was just arguing against a strawman. >> >> Best regards, >> Quantum >> _______________________________________________ >> 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. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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. >> > [image: 9a3dc81c5638ef758a63e41d4c5665eea79fafd3] > > _______________________________________________ > 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. >
_______________________________________________ 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.
