Folks - Please remember this mail list is in place to provide for an exchange of technical information and the discussion of specific implementation issues that require cooperation among network service providers.
The Mailing List is not an appropriate platform to resolve personal issues, engage in disputes, or file complaints. Admins encourage you to remember the Usage Guidelines <https://www.nanog.org/resources/nanog-mailing-list/usage-guidelines/>. Should you have any questions/concerns about this reminder, please send a message to adm...@nanog.org <mailto:adm...@nanog.org>. Valerie Wittkop Program Director vwitt...@nanog.org | +1 734-730-0225 (mobile) | www.nanog.org NANOG | 305 E. Eisenhower Pkwy, Suite 100 | Ann Arbor, MI 48108, USA ASN 19230 > On Dec 7, 2021, at 11:34, William Herrin <b...@herrin.us> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 3:25 AM John Curran <jcur...@arin.net> wrote: >> On 6 Dec 2021, at 4:59 PM, Jay Hennigan <j...@west.net> wrote: >>> If ARIN's fee structure is such that it is financially advantageous for any >>> class of network operators to turn off IPv6, they're doing it wrong IMHO. >> >> The situation is exactly opposite > > And yet you have people reporting that ARIN's fee schedule offers > dissuasion for their deployments of IPv6. Right here in this email > thread. How can that be? > > Don't gaslight us John. Seriously, it's not cool. ARIN fees make IPv6 > registration a neutral prospect for only a fraction of its > registrants. You've presented something as broadly true that isn't. > Those of us for whom your claim is false don't appreciate the > insinuation that we've misrepresented ARIN's behavior. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > -- > William Herrin > b...@herrin.us > https://bill.herrin.us/
