Re: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation

[Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>]

> On Dec 5, 2021, at 7:41 AM, Gary Buhrmaster <gary.buhrmaster () gmail com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 5, 2021 at 2:23 PM Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog () 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