[address-policy-wg] IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy (2006-02)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy (2006-02)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy (2006-02)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Dennis Lundström
dennis at gippnet.com
Wed Oct 25 11:15:19 CEST 2006
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Lars. I guess It depends on the definition of an "end-site" The whole idea with IPv6 is to push the addresses to the end users. We would without a doubt see more "connected" household appliances in the future. And for our part. 200 /48 is not totally unrealistic. I would say It's way to early to say. It depends very much on how fast the market will adapt IPv6, and how fast new appliances are available. Personally I would say that even a qualified guess on an estimate is really, really hard here, and we don't want to lie to our friends at RIPE-NCC, don't we :-) Cheers! - --Dennis Lundström GippNET AB (AS34537) Lars Lystrup Christensen wrote: > I believe the new proposal is much fairer to smaller ISPs, who > currently are unable to justify assignments for IPv6. Currently we > would not be able to assign 200 /48 in two years and therefore > unable to receive IPv6 address space. However, until we are able to > provide IPv6 connectivity, our customers won't request such IP > addresses from us. And since our customers won't request them, we > can't justify requesting from RIPE, who won't assign since we can't > assign at lease 200 /48 in two years.... > > As shown this ends up in a deadlock situation and therefore IPv6 > will only be available to larger ISPs. > > I know IPv6 is still quite a new "feature" and therefore still not > widely used, but unless ISPs get access to IPv6 address space, it > won't be more widely used. > > I'm definitely in favour of the new proposal. > > ______________________________________ > > Med venlig hilsen / Kind regards > > Lars Lystrup Christensen Network Engineer LLC11-RIPE > > >> -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net >> [mailto:address-policy-wg- admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Stefan >> Camilleri Sent: 24. oktober 2006 12:14 To: >> jordi.palet at consulintel.es; address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: >> RE: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment >> Policy (2006-02) >> >> Hi, >> >> I think that the modifications as proposed, though still not >> *there* are a big improvement on existing text particularly with >> the dropping of the requirement for 200 /48 assignments. >> >> I fully support the new Proposal >> >> Regards. >> >> Stephen SC4079-RIPE >> >>> -----Original Message----- From: >>> address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net >>> [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of JORDI >>> PALET MARTINEZ Sent: L-Erbgħa, 27 ta' Settembru 2006 12:02 To: >>> address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 >>> Address Allocation and Assignment Policy (2006-02) >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Same for this one ... Looking for further inputs to this policy >>> proposal. >>> >>> As the discussion period for this proposal >>> (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-02.html) is >>> almost over, I will like to ask for the latest inputs in order >>> to further decide how to proceed. >>> >>> Filiz arranged some stats about the discussion (thanks a lot >>> for that !) last July, and afterwards, even if the discussion >>> period has been extended, I don't recall having seen new >>> comments. >>> >>> The stats don't include my own postings: >>> >>>>>> - there were 39 posts from 14 different individuals about >>>>>> it. >>>>>> >>>>>> - 8 people supported it. >>>>>> >>>>>> - 1 person *seemed* to be in favour of keeping the >>>>>> current policy. >>>>>> >>>>>> - 5 people made comments which I could not identify a >>> clear support >>>>>> or objection. >>> So someone else will like to say anything new or clarify their >>> view in favor or opposition to the proposal ? >>> >>> Regards, Jordi >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: >>> http://www.ipv6tf.org >>> >>> Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org >>> >>> This electronic message contains information which may be >>> privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be >>> for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not >>> the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, >>> distribution or use of the contents of this information, >>> including attached files, is prohibited. >>> >>> >>> >>> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFPysnsqJZaeZjsn8RAljpAKC8mRyq+x+piuXli7BNzF40uYCrVwCfT4LI uFK7kA3CozqLjc3nBmypEoE= =gmlg -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy (2006-02)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy (2006-02)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]