Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-17: Returned Addresses to the 4.10 Reserved Pool

> On Aug 26, 2019, at 18:09 , Martin Hannigan wrote: > > > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 5:10 PM Owen DeLong > wrote: > Really, it seems to me that this proposal is another attempt at eliminating > the waiting list for unmet requests. > > The first attempt (ARIN

Re: [arin-ppml] Is it time to start requirement to have IPv6 in place before receiving Section 8.5 transfered IPv4 addresses?

I'm sure you have heard of the proverb, ”you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.” It seems to me that you are trying to force the horses to drink the IPv6 water. The US Government tried to force it's departments to do IPv6 most of them did it, but many promptly turned it off

Re: [arin-ppml] Is it time to start requirement to have IPv6 in place before receiving Section 8.5 transfered IPv4 addresses?

> David Farmer wrote : > I'm sure you have heard of the proverb, "you can lead a horse to water, but > you can’t make him > drink." It seems to me that you are trying to force the horses to drink the > IPv6 water. Sounds more like trying to shove it down the throat to me. > The US Government

Re: [arin-ppml] Is it time to start requirement to have IPv6 in place before receiving Section 8.5 transfered IPv4 addresses?

I also feel that an allocation is insufficient - IPv6 should actually be routed and in use first. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy

Re: [arin-ppml] Is it time to start requirement to have IPv6 in place before receiving Section 8.5 transfered IPv4 addresses?

On 27 Aug 2019, at 5:26 PM, David Farmer mailto:far...@umn.edu>> wrote: ... The US Government tried to force it's departments to do IPv6 most of them did it, but many promptly turned it off after passing the tests. David - While not taking any position on the proposed policy change, I would

Re: [arin-ppml] Is it time to start requirement to have IPv6 in place before receiving Section 8.5 transfered IPv4 addresses?

On 8/27/19 2:26 PM, David Farmer wrote: > You can try to force people to deploy IPv6 to get more IPv4, but many of > them won't use it and will promptly turn it off after they have the IPv4 > they are looking for.  It seems illogical, but it has and will happen > again.   If nothing else, it

Re: [arin-ppml] Is it time to start requirement to have IPv6 in place before receiving Section 8.5 transfered IPv4 addresses?

> On Aug 27, 2019, at 12:06 , hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote: > > There has been quite a bit of discussion of the proposals to eliminate the > wait list by sending freed space to the 4.4 and 4.10 space, and eliminating > the waiting list. I have generally been in favor of this since 4.10 space

Re: [arin-ppml] Is it time to start requirement to have IPv6 in place before receiving Section 8.5 transfered IPv4 addresses?

I may be wrong but it looks like that for some people at some point the only thing that matters is the sensation someone may be trying to tell them how to do things than if IPv6 should be deployed or not. Right, how long more will we be in this back and forth of "I know I have to deploy IPv6

Re: [arin-ppml] Is it time to start requirement to have IPv6 in place before receiving Section 8.5 transfered IPv4 addresses?

I noticed this item from 7 May 2007 that I think would support my suggestion: WHEREAS, community access to Internet Protocol (IP) numbering Resources has proved essential to the successful growth of the Internet; and, WHEREAS, ongoing community access to Internet Protocol version 4

Re: [arin-ppml] Is it time to start requirement to have IPv6 in place before receiving Section 8.5 transfered IPv4 addresses?

In 2007, we still had /8's to assign to RIR's, and a free pool at ARIN. No one wanted to be the first to deploy IPv6. I would have never done it myself if it was not for the US Federal Government requirement to have all networks (including contractor networks at NASA) speaking IPv6 in 2008. A

Re: [arin-ppml] Is it time to start requirement to have IPv6 in place before receiving Section 8.5 transfered IPv4 addresses?

> hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote : > I noticed this item from 7 May 2007 that I think would support my suggestion: Unless I have been caught in a time warp, the current year is 2019. In 2007, one could still argue that IPv6 would be deployed "in the next 2 to 3 years". I propose to split ARIN in

[arin-ppml] Is it time to start requirement to have IPv6 in place before receiving Section 8.5 transfered IPv4 addresses?

There has been quite a bit of discussion of the proposals to eliminate the wait list by sending freed space to the 4.4 and 4.10 space, and eliminating the waiting list. I have generally been in favor of this since 4.10 space has a requirement to have/use IPv6 which I think is something that

Re: [arin-ppml] Is it time to start requirement to have IPv6 in place before receiving Section 8.5 transfered IPv4 addresses?

Hello Albert Initially it sounds interesting discussion to have. My suggestion to you is to skip this part to just have an IPv6 allocation as in my view does little or no much practical difference. Instead the second scenario that you mentioned seems much more reasonable at the stage we find