Re: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation

[Valerie Wittkop <vwittkop () nanog org>]

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 admins () nanog org <mailto:admins () nanog org>.
 

Valerie Wittkop
Program Director
vwittkop () 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 <bill () herrin us> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 3:25 AM John Curran <jcurran () arin net> wrote:
> > On 6 Dec 2021, at 4:59 PM, Jay Hennigan <jay () 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
> bill () herrin us
> https://bill.herrin.us/