On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 8:42 AM John Curran <[email protected]> wrote: > ARIN tries to provide as much flexibility as possible in dealing with > requests, so it is important that the community document the reasoning behind > policy language that constrains the choices available to those requesting > resources. ARIN staff will certainly get asked about such restrictions, so > we best understand the motivation.
Hi John, My problem with the proposal is that it extends an ARIN practice which is not technically sound, namely allocating less than 2^96 IPv6 addresses to ISPs, all in order to solve what is frankly a stupid billing problem. With it's fee selection, ARIN has needlessly exacerbated a chicken-and-egg problem where the fees obstruct the adoption of IPv6 which prevents the resources from gaining the value that would justify the fees. The correct solution to the problem is: don't do that. Just stop. ARIN has itself twisted in a knot around the idea that IPv6 billing has to be equitable in relation to the other number resources *right now*. It does not, and these goofy efforts to make it so have harmed the community for something like a decade now. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin [email protected] https://bill.herrin.us/ _______________________________________________ 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.
