[ipv6-wg] Re: IPv6 PI
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or something else?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Carlos Morgado
chbm at chbm.net
Sat Dec 3 00:29:05 CET 2005
On 21 Nov 2005 16:27:02, Elmar K. Bins wrote: > lea.roberts at stanford.edu (Lea Roberts) wrote: > > > this was the original ARIN proposal 2005-1, which could not reach > > consensus. The last time around it was re-worked to add more > restrictions > > and again failed because other folks felt it was too restrictive. There > > are actually two issues: > > > > 1) the high cost of renumbering in a large organization > > Why should they renumber, if it's their own block? > As in, PI ? > > > 2) multi-homing for network reliability and resiliency > > Where's the problem here? Someone who can afford and establish > a case for _real_ multihoming can get an ASN and thus an assignment. > No. Unless you relax the rules for ASN and then *oh gosh* you have a ASN size problem. > Like was already said - loosening the ASN handout rules needs changes > in assignment rules, too. But that's for years to come. > No. Adress space and routing policy are diferent entities. That's why LIRs don't automagically get an ASN. > Yours, > Elmi. > > -- > > "Begehe nur nicht den Fehler, Meinung durch Sachverstand zu substituieren." > (PLemken, > <bu6o7e$e6v0p$2 at ID-31.news.uni-berlin.de>) > > --------------------------------------------------------------[ ELMI-RIPE > ]--- > -- Carlos Morgado - chbm(a)ma.ssive.net - http://chbm.net/0x1FC57F0A FP:0A27 35D3 C448 3641 0573 6876 2A37 4BB2 1FC5 7F0A
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or something else?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]