[address-policy-wg] IPv6 addresses to transit-providers
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 access to K-root
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 addresses to transit-providers
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Hans Petter Holen
hpholen at tiscali.no
Wed Mar 2 11:17:58 CET 2005
Jeroen Massar wrote: >On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 17:31 +0000, Tim Streater wrote: > > >> 1) be an LIR - OK fine, we're an LIR. >> >>2) not be an End Site - OK we're not. >> >>3) plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organisations - yes, we will certainly do that - to which it will assign /48s etc etc - no, we will never do that as all our customers are LIRs. >> >>4) have a plan for making at least 200 /48 assignments to other organisations etc etc - no, we will never assign such space as all our customers have their own already. >> >> > >According to the above, either 4 is false or 2 is false and you are >simply an endsite. Might sound harsh, but that is it... at the moment... > > Whait if I am (mainly) anIPv6 transit provider with 201 customers - all beeing LIR on their own: - I cannot get address space from my upstream because I have none or several depending on my size and definition of "up" - I cant make a plan to assigh 200 /48s since all my customers are LIRs on their own - I am hardly an end site ? how do I get adresses under the current policy ? If I cannot, how do we modify the policy to alow me to get adresses ? This is an excellent point to show were the addressing policies puts limitations on the structure of the ISP industry unless we are careful. -hph
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 access to K-root
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 addresses to transit-providers
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]