[address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Marc van Selm
marc.van.selm at nc3a.nato.int
Fri Jun 9 08:05:52 CEST 2006
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 14:20, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > Hi, > > I will like to know if anyone has any comments/inputs on this proposal. > > I tried to follow the suggestions received after the presentation of the > IPv6 PI policy at the last meeting. I still support PI space and like the contractual relationship with the RIR. I do not like the requirement that the block must be returned after 3 years. That is against the main reason why PI is useful. Freedom of renumbering everytime one needs to change ISP. When one needs to start over after 3 years one might as wel use PA because one needs to renumber once in a while anyway. The whole purpose of PI, in my mind, is to be able to build and extend a business critical and possibly worldwide network without having to renumber for the sake of it. (Not that I want to hardcode IP addresses but a transparent renumbering of a large network is to costly and interferes to much with the core business) Marc -- Marc van Selm NATO C3 Agency CIS Division E-mail: marc.van.selm at nc3a.nato.int (PGP capable)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [policy-announce] 2006-02 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]