Re: MIR proposal
- Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 16:10:18 +0100
----- Original Message -----
From: "John L Crain" crain@localhost
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 4:03 PM
Subject: Re: MIR proposal
> <CUT>
>
> Hi Gert,
>
> >
> > And yes, this is also very much needed for IPv6. Getting a /35 and
> > having to hand out individual /48's to customers of customers of ours
> > isn't going to build proper hierarchical routing.
>
> The concepts for IPv6 that are under discussion do already cover this.
> An allocation goes to a large ISP who can then assign /48's directly to
> networks connecting to them or shorter prefixes to resellers/downstreams.
>
> I'm not sure if this works in IPv4 because of the limited amount of room
we
> have to play with.
We are only limited because of teh current thinking and structure.
>
> I'm also not sure what the criteria would be in the proposal that defines
> who is and isn't allowed to become a MIR. It's certainly a differnet
concept
> to the present one in the RIPE region where LIR's don't "officially" sub-
> allocate.
>
Its not so different from the RIR model.
> I can certainly see why a large ISP would want to do this. I'm not sure
how
> it changes the dynamics for smaller ISP's as to how they would get their
IP
> addresses. Becoming an LIR with an upstream rather than a regional
registry
> I assume means renumbering if you change the upstream.
>
MIR's are only to be created within a network (AS if you like) they would
not suballocate to customers only LIR's withing their network (usualy
country specific). Other LIR's not needing a MIR would deal direct with the
NCC. UUNET has 17 LIR's currently the MIR would suballocate to these not to
other ISP's or customers direct.
BTW Nice to hear from you.
> John Crain
>
>
>
>
>
>
