[address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jerzy Pawlus
Jerzy.Pawlus at cyf-kr.edu.pl
Thu Apr 16 10:11:51 CEST 2009
Leo, On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 09:02:06AM -0700, Leo Vegoda wrote: > On 15/04/2009 2:34, "Marco Hogewoning" <marcoh at marcoh.net> wrote: > > Let's assume you have a seperate entity in your company, which > > operates in a different geographical region under it's own AS and > > routing policy. Only one company (the holding for instance) is an LIR > > in the current situation. > > > > How do you solve this at the moment iin IPv4-land ? > > Good question. Isn't the normal answer to open a separate LIR for the > separate business unit? Your solution, although possible, has some drawbacks: It adds administrative burden, this was discussed here. But it also will diminish the remaining unallocated IPv4 space. I think we can modify your idea slightly. Let's assign 10 'scoring units' for a second and subsequent /32 not fulfilling HD-Ratio. It will effectively move an LIR to a higher billing category. This, plus requirement of seperate routing policy may convince people to support the new policy. Jurek
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]