Jordi,
I wanted to close the day on a positive note.
> Jordi wrote :
> I buy you a dinner if not, even in one of the Michelin restaurants in Madrid
> if you want!
These are not acceptable terms. I buy. You come to California :P
For the PPML readers :
Jordi and I have met, several times. 20
> Are you going to challenge ARIN in the court because you don't like the
> policy and the
> well established policy making process that you signed a contract agreeing
> with ?
You think I'm the only one ? I can sue you just because I don't like the color
of your shirt.
> I don't understand
Matthew,
> Matthew Wilder wrote :
> The Google IPv6 stats page clearly states that their graph indicates the % of
> users who
> access Google services using IPv6. That means eyeball networks, enterprise,
> non-profit,
> government, etc. In other words, you might summarize this by saying "the
>
On 06/11/2019 20:40, Michel Py wrote:
None of my customers have IPv6. None of my suppliers have IPv6. My current
upstream does not have IPv6. If Google goes IPv6-only, I will find another
search engine that values my business. There are ZERO others that I wish to
connect to that require me
John,
> I’m quite aware of the report – and I am quoted therein on page 6 arguing a
> very
> similar point; i.e. that IPv6 may lack sufficient economic incentive to
> overtake IPv4 -
I read your RFCs. A long time ago. I was a total zealot at that time, FWIW.
> doesn’t mean that IPv6 is a
Hi John,
I installed IPv6 on our OpenVMS systems in 2011 (or maybe earlier, 2011
is when I got our IPv6 block through SixXs and the VMS systems were the
first ones I configured for IPv6.)
:)
Unfortunately, neither of our ISPs has IPv6 available in our area yet,
though they both claim to
Michel,
The Google IPv6 stats page clearly states that their graph indicates the % of
users who access Google services using IPv6. That means eyeball networks,
enterprise, non-profit, government, etc. In other words, you might summarize
this by saying "the Internet".
At 30% of the Internet
This isn't a productive proposal. I’m not in favor of this approach.
Best,
-M<
On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 12:56 ARIN wrote:
> On 1 November 2019, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted
> "ARIN-prop-278: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers"
> as a Draft Policy.
>
> Draft
On 11/6/2019 03:53 PM, Andrew Dul wrote:
On 11/6/2019 11:21 AM, John Santos wrote:
On 11/6/2019 12:57 PM, ARIN wrote:
This policy attempts to address these issues, by raising the minimum
size to a /24 and limits total amount an organization can receive to
a /21. It also removes the
> On Nov 6, 2019, at 15:01 , Fernando Frediani wrote:
>
> To those who oppose because they find the mechanism in the proposal is not
> effective do you have an alternative and more effective text to propose so
> the author may consider a change. I guess if you the current is ineffective
>
On 11/6/2019 03:09 PM, scott wrote:
On Wed, 6 Nov 2019, Owen DeLong wrote:
Actually, technically, Windows NT would meet the requirement in this
proposal. It just couldn’t resolve DNS over IPv6.
I remember patching complete, functional v6 support into my 2.4.18 linux
kernels, but it looks
Thinking about this a little more, I oppose this as a requirement to
complete IPv4 transfers, as a requirement in section 8. Having to go to the
IPv4 market is enough of a hurdle for IPv4 transfers. However, as a
requirement for accessing the IPv4 waiting list, as an additional
requirement in
> JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote :
> 30% of *global* Internet traffic, measured by google, among others.
I get it, the right way to measure the IPv6 part of Internet traffic is at
Google, which is IPv6 enabled.
Totally scientific.
Geez, I wonder if someone was to measure the Windows market share on
To those who oppose because they find the mechanism in the proposal is
not effective do you have an alternative and more effective text to
propose so the author may consider a change. I guess if you the current
is ineffective the alternative would have to be more complex but still
objective.
On 6 Nov 2019, at 5:05 PM, Michel Py wrote:
>
> Read this paper. Serious people, funded by ICANN.
> Short :
> https://www.internetgovernance.org/2019/02/20/report-on-ipv6-get-ready-for-a-mixed-internet-world/
> Long :
>
30% of *global* Internet traffic, measured by google, among others.
If you read all the details you will understand that the measurements in IX,
don't reflect average world traffic, especially when ISPs have their own caches
from Google, Facebook, Netflix, Akamai+other CDNs etc., which
At 05:05 PM 11/6/2019, Michel Py wrote:
John,
>> Michel Py wrote :
>> IPv6 has failed to deploy for twenty years. Open your eyes.
> John Curran wrote :
> That's a point that you'll need to prove to the community, if
indeed you wish it to be considered in the development of policy.
It's
On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 10:05:42PM +, Michel Py wrote:
[snip]
> My ecosystem is IPv4 and it's big enough to survive on its own
> forever.
So then you're not coming back to the well for more v4 addresses
in the ARIN region? Then the policy wouldn't affect you...
--
Posted from my personal
John,
>> Michel Py wrote :
>> IPv6 has failed to deploy for twenty years. Open your eyes.
> John Curran wrote :
> That’s a point that you’ll need to prove to the community, if indeed you wish
> it to be considered in the development of policy.
https://fedv6-deployment.antd.nist.gov/
Look at
I agree with David.
The Internet grew because folks could decide best how to use it. Trying to
force IPv6 is opposite of what made the Internet a great place to begin with.
We have had IPv6 for many years but I’ve yet to have a customer ask
specifically for it. As IPv6 continues to grow in
Michel,
The resources of the majority that does not want IPv6 are far greater
than the resources of the minority that does.
Now you have me really curious. Why are you opposed to IPv6? The digital
divide is only widened by resource scarcity, by placing undue burden of
cost on the
Just in case ... support !
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 6/11/19 18:57, "ARIN-PPML en nombre de ARIN" escribió:
The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 1 November 2019 and decided to
send the following Recommended Draft Policy to Last Call:
ARIN-2019-15: Hijacking
Hi Michael,
With all the respect, 30%+ global IPv6 traffic, I think somebody else should
open the eyes!
China already mandated it to the ISPs, even if we aren't able to measure it
correctly (yet), you can guess that being a country with 1.4 billion
inhabitants, this will, in just a couple of
> Adam Thompson wrote :
> If one test VM, one free tunnel, and about 4 hours of time constitute an
> "undue"
> burden... especially when there's no requirement to leave it up and running.
My billing rate is $300/hr. Send me $1200 and I'll do it.
> I further believe quite firmly that this policy
I strongly approve of this policy.
I further believe quite firmly that this policy will not be without some legal
risk, based on statements made by others in this mailing list.
However, I believe this is one time where ARIN should happily spend the
resources (yes, I understand those come
I agree with David and at the moment am opposed to this policy proposal.
All of my recent employers have provided cloud / web infrastructure
services of one sort or another. Some of them provide those services over
IPv6, and some don't yet, depending on whether their customers demand it.
On 6 Nov 2019, at 3:58 PM, Michel Py
mailto:mic...@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>>
wrote:
John Curran wrote :
you might find it difficult to argue that you wish the benefits of
cooperation minus whatever obligations that community collectively establishes.
You might find difficult to explain to
I fully support this proposal.
Sooner or later goverments will start protecting citizens against organizations
that provide services not supporting IPv6. ASAP we start making that ourselves,
by all possible means, much better than being regulated.
I've only a comment. Replace migration working
ARIN make the policies that were agreed and must be followed by everybody
who signed a contract with them and which will surely be honored by any
court.
Any business has rules and regulations to be followed and not always
Congress make them. It's quiet normal really.
This proposal does not make
I oppose this policy.
I'm not convinced of the efficacy of this policy, the policy's ability to
produce its intended or desired result. I presume the intended result is to
increase the deployment of IPv6. I'm not convinced that creating artificial
hurdles for IPv4 will increase the deployment of
> John Curran wrote :
> you might find it difficult to argue that you wish the benefits of
> cooperation minus whatever obligations that community collectively
> establishes.
You might find difficult to explain to your members the legal costs associated
with pursuing a crusade that has failed
On 11/6/2019 11:21 AM, John Santos wrote:
> On 11/6/2019 12:57 PM, ARIN wrote:
>
>> This policy attempts to address these issues, by raising the minimum
>> size to a /24 and limits total amount an organization can receive to
>> a /21. It also removes the requirement for return and renumber, since
On Wed, 6 Nov 2019, Michel Py wrote:
sc...@solarnetone.org
What do you normally do when hardware or software hits EOL?
I keep it until I serves no purpose.
How do you manage the security problems with software and hardware
components which are no longer receiving support from either the
On 6 Nov 2019, at 3:23 PM, Michel Py wrote:
> There is no law that says I need IPv6, therefore the courts will hear my case
> for undue burden.
Michel -
As ARIN is not a governmental authority (but rather administering the registry
on behalf of the community via a set of contracts), you’ll
I support this proposal and consider it is very welcome and came at a right
time.
It makes total sense to require networks at minimal to show IPv6 is
operational in order to transfer more IPv4. It shows a commitment with all
others, otherwise the opposite is really bad for whole Internet
> Further, getting a court order to split the registry apart is even a greater
> stretch.
ARIN does not make the laws in the United States. See you in court, you can
have your little IPv6-only world to yourself.
Michel.
___
ARIN-PPML
You are
> hostmas...@uneedus.com
> However I have also had IPv6 since 2007.
I was on the 6bone.
Michel.
___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage
No problem. However under this policy draft, you would no longer receive
any additional IPv4 addresses from ARIN. Further, getting a court order
to split the registry apart is even a greater stretch.
I have legacy stuff. However I have also had IPv6 since 2007. It was
initially done as a
At 02:20 PM 11/6/2019, hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote:
If you choose to ignore IPv6, I think it is reasonable for ARIN to
tell you no new IPv4 addresses for you.
Why is that reasonable? I think it's reasonable that an
organization may choose to deploy IPv6. I also think it's reasonable
that
> sc...@solarnetone.org
> What do you normally do when hardware or software hits EOL?
I keep it until I serves no purpose.
I repeat : ARIN will not force me to waste time filling IPv6 paperwork without
consequences.
If ARIN wants to go IPv6-only, there will be a nice case in court to split the
On 11/6/19 9:55 AM, ARIN wrote:
> On 1 November 2019, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted
> "ARIN-prop-278: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers"
> as a Draft Policy.
I support this policy
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
On Wed, 6 Nov 2019, Owen DeLong wrote:
Actually, technically, Windows NT would meet the requirement in this
proposal. It just couldn’t resolve DNS over IPv6.
I remember patching complete, functional v6 support into my 2.4.18 linux
kernels, but it looks like the first v6 code appeared in
Nor would IPv6 dns resolution be required in order to meet the proposal.
When it was discussed on the list, there was discussion of how you can
prove an IPv6 block is routed. This is a good answer, simply require that
you can actually use the block of IPv6 addresses to communicate. It could
> On Nov 6, 2019, at 11:21 , John Santos wrote:
>
> On 11/6/2019 12:57 PM, ARIN wrote:
>
>> This policy attempts to address these issues, by raising the minimum size to
>> a /24 and limits total amount an organization can receive to a /21. It also
>> removes the requirement for return and
Actually, technically, Windows NT would meet the requirement in this proposal.
It just couldn’t resolve DNS over IPv6.
Owen
> On Nov 6, 2019, at 11:40 , hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote:
>
> Also, you can under this proposal still have that Windows 3.1 workstation, or
> even a DOS workstation
Also, you can under this proposal still have that Windows 3.1 workstation,
or even a DOS workstation using packet drivers.
All it says is that 1) You have an IPv6 Assignment or Allocation from
ARIN, and 2) You have at least ONE workstation on it that is capable of
communicating using that
On Wed, 6 Nov 2019, Michel Py wrote:
I oppose this proposal. If I am ever in a position where ARIN is trying
to force me to request or use IPv6, I will sue ARIN for imposing an
undue burden.
What do you normally do when hardware or software hits EOL?
I am serious. If ARIN generates
On 11/6/2019 12:57 PM, ARIN wrote:
This policy attempts to address these issues, by raising the minimum
size to a /24 and limits total amount an organization can receive to a
/21. It also removes the requirement for return and renumber, since that
was primarily added to allow organizations to
Arin also does not have to allow you to transfer any new IPv4 addresses to
your Org either. It is perfectly reasonable for ARIN to set forth
conditions that Orgs must meet in order to receive IPv4 resources. There
are already several other conditions in place. This proposal simply adds
one
I oppose this proposal. If I am ever in a position where ARIN is trying to
force me to request or use IPv6, I will sue ARIN for imposing an undue burden.
I am serious. If ARIN generates more work for me, I will explore all options to
be compensated.
Michel.
The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 1 November 2019 and decided to
send the following Recommended Draft Policy to Last Call:
ARIN-2019-8: Clarification of Section 4.10 for Multiple Discrete Networks
Feedback is encouraged during the Last Call period. All comments should
be provided to the
The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 1 November 2019 and decided to
send the following Recommended Draft Policy to Last Call:
ARIN-2019-3: Update 4.10 – IPv6 Deployment Block
Feedback is encouraged during the Last Call period. All comments should
be provided to the Public Policy Mailing
The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 1 November 2019 and decided to
send the following Recommended Draft Policy to Last Call:
ARIN-2019-15: Hijacking Authorization Not-intended
Feedback is encouraged during the Last Call period. All comments should
be provided to the Public Policy Mailing
On 1 November 2019, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted
"ARIN-prop-278: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers"
as a Draft Policy.
Draft Policy ARIN-2019-19 is below and can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2019_19/
You are encouraged to discuss
In accordance with the Policy Development Process (PDP), the Advisory
Council met on 1 November 2019.
The AC has advanced the following Recommended Draft Policies to Last
Call (each will be posted separately):
* ARIN-2019-3: Update 4.10 – IPv6 Deployment Block
* ARIN-2019-8: Clarification
55 matches
Mail list logo
