On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 20:30 Joe Provo wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 07:46:42PM +0200, Job Snijders wrote:
> > On
> > Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 18:53 wrote:
> [snip]
> > There may be other reasons than ???shortage??? to administratively move
> > resources. Have you considered that others may
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 20:21 Fernando Frediani
wrote:
> Well, I can't see how allowing IPv6 transfers or not can be compared to a
> 'feature' and discourage people to adopt it or not. If they do this based
> on this premise it is much worse for them than for the rest of the
> internet. And
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 07:46:42PM +0200, Job Snijders wrote:
> On
> Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 18:53 wrote:
[snip]
> There may be other reasons than ???shortage??? to administratively move
> resources. Have you considered that others may have other priorities and
> that there may be no clear downside
Well, I can't see how allowing IPv6 transfers or not can be compared to
a 'feature' and discourage people to adopt it or not. If they do this
based on this premise it is much worse for them than for the rest of the
internet. And going beyond as it is normally discussed in these policy
lists it
I would like to add to Chris' questions;
Do you prefer Draft Policy ARIN-2019-10 or Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow
Inter-regional IPv6 Resource Transfers to move forward?
Or, is there a need for both Draft Policy's to continue forward?
Is there some part of one or the other that should be
On
Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 18:53 wrote:
> The main problem I see is that this policy for the first time will open
> the door up to IPv6 transfers. I do not agree with IPv6 transfers.
>
> Up to this point, the primary reason why we allow transfers of IPv4 and 16
> bit ASN numbers is the shortage
Well said !
On 18/06/2019 13:53, hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote:
The main problem I see is that this policy for the first time will
open the door up to IPv6 transfers. I do not agree with IPv6 transfers.
Me either
Up to this point, the primary reason why we allow transfers of IPv4
and 16 bit
Hello,
3. Is there any potential deleterious impact should this language be
adopted into the NRPM?
I speak neither for or against this draft policy.
I would like to note that the delegation of ip6.arpa zones are currently
cleanly delineated. In the simple and current example, each RIR is
Yes, yes, yes, and yes.
This sort of flexibility would be useful and helpful for multinationals that
want to consolidate RIR accounts after acquisitions. It would probably also
provide a way to bypass ARIN policy, so we should think carefully about whether
all resources (such as waiting list
The main problem I see is that this policy for the first time will open
the door up to IPv6 transfers. I do not agree with IPv6 transfers.
Up to this point, the primary reason why we allow transfers of IPv4 and 16
bit ASN numbers is the shortage of these resources.
In the case of IPv6
Hello PPML,
The Advisory Council is seeking statements of support or opposition to the
below draft policy, which so far have not been seen on PPML. I’d advise the
community to consider the following questions:
1. Is the problem statement a valid and/or likely occurrence that would require
a
11 matches
Mail list logo
