[address-policy-wg] Discrepancy Between RIPE Policies on IPv4 and IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Address Space
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Discrepancy Between RIPE Policies on IPv4 and IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Address Space
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Discrepancy Between RIPE Policies on IPv4 and IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Address Space
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Richard Hartmann
richih.mailinglist at gmail.com
Wed May 5 10:22:23 CEST 2010
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 17:43, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote: > There is no real incentive to do so, as you can get a huuuuuge block of > addresses fairly easily. No incentive and no sane reason never stopped people from doing weird stuff ;) > The incentive to do this with PI is "save on the costs" - and then, since > the PI policy doesn't permit you to give address blocks from the PI space > to your access customers, the consequence would be "if you can only give > a single IPv6 address to the customers, that's all the customer is going > to get" (and the blame will be pointed to the RIPE NCC). Unless I am mistaken, a /64 PI has the same cost as a /32 PI. That being said, I initially assumed that "differences of technical nature and in sheer abundance" do not matter which was wrong, plain and simple. My natural assumption was that no sub-allocation would ever be smaller than /64, but of course this needs to be put into text. Richard
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Discrepancy Between RIPE Policies on IPv4 and IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Address Space
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Discrepancy Between RIPE Policies on IPv4 and IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Address Space
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]