[131039] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jack Bates)
Tue Oct 19 14:37:23 2010
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 13:37:15 -0500
From: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <4DCA91E5-52FB-44B0-BD6E-801270AE4C6C@delong.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 10/19/2010 1:21 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> When did you ask? If it was more than 6 months ago, then, I would suggest asking again. If it was less than 6
> months ago, can you send me any or all of the correspondence so I can address it with Leslie and try and
> get whatever training issues remain resolved?
>
RegDate: 2009-01-16
Haven't read anything on changes in the announcements, except the "we're
sending this to PPML (think that's right?)", but no announcement on a
change of opinion/policy. I have enough mailing lists.
> If ARIN is incorrectly denying requests, I'll definitely work on getting that resolved.
>
We'll see. I've asked for a do-over, or whatever they called it. /24
seemed a bit much, so I slimmed down to /27, thinking it more
appropriate for a 5 year plan (which is what they asked).
> The beauty is that we don't have to come to rural OK to compete. We can just let them use whatever stingy amount
> of address space you provide to get a tunnel to us.
Sure they'll love the latency. I know I currently do with the mess that
is core routing. Anyone who would actually care, probably would request
a static, which we are much more lenient with IPv6 than IPv4. However, I
can't issue /48 to everyone as things stand. We'll see how it goes with
ARIN, now that I know I can ask again and not go through the hassle for
nothing.
Jack
