[address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 2
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 2
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 2
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Randy Bush
randy at psg.com
Mon Jul 6 00:16:43 CEST 2009
Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl> > a) Everyone gets one (and only one) fixed size block, as described in > 2008-06 apnic chose this path, i believe for the following reason you state: > I think it is important to think about new companies. They will very > probably require some IPv4 address space during the transition from > IPv4 to IPv6. I think the whole community will be in a lot of trouble > if we make a policy that makes it impossible for new entrants to > participate in a dual-stack world. Andreas Schachtner <Andreas at Schachtner.eu> wrote: > IMHO, the "one size fits all" approach doesn't seem the right way to > go. you're right, of course. but the problem is, nothing will fit all. we are out of ipv4 space. concepts such as meeting needs of existing players are now pretty much irrelevant. randy
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 2
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 2
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]