questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation

Rubens Kuhl rubensk at gmail.com
Mon Dec 6 18:28:45 UTC 2021


I strongly encourage my competitors to turn off IPv6, so I hope you
convince one of them to do so. ;-)


Rubens

On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 2:59 PM Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 5, 2021, at 7:41 AM, Gary Buhrmaster <gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 5, 2021 at 2:23 PM Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog at nanog.org> wrote:
> >
> >> The double billing (had it been present at the time) would have prevented me from signing the LRSA for my IPv4 resources.
> >
> > There were some community participants that suggested
> > that having a formal relationship with the ARIN organization
> > by signing the LRSA was good for the resource holders,
> > and good for the overall commons.   There were other
> > members that suggested that signing the LRSA would be
> > potentially disadvantageous at some future time.
> >
> > While I still believe that having a formal relationship is the
> > better approach, even if it costs a bit more(*), I do
> > understand that some people may feel vindicated about
> > not signing a LRSA, or have changed their opinion about
> > whether they should have signed, or suggested others do
> > so.  Perhaps there are lessons to be learned here.
> >
> >
> >
> > (*) If the number resources no longer have value
> > exceeding their fees for an organization, I understand
> > there is a robust transfer market available :-)
>
> The situation is such that the current economic incentives would be most advantageous to me to preserve my LRSA and abandon my RSA, which would involve simply turning off IPv6.
>
> Obviously, I would rather not have to do that, but more importantly, I really dislike the idea that ARIN is once again creating financial disincentives for the adoption or continued use of IPv6.
>
> Owen
>


More information about the NANOG mailing list