|
|
 |
Re: [address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it lessdestructive
-
To: Sascha Luck ripe-lst@localhost
-
From: Tim Streater <tim.streater@localhost
-
Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 10:03:09 +0100
At 19:01 08/05/2006, Sascha Luck wrote:
On Monday 08 May 2006 06:28, Florian Weimer wrote:
> In the latter case, a
> rather significant fee is needed to turn global inconvenience into a
> local one.
An arbitrary fee, specifically designed to block someone's entry into
*any* market, is *illegal*, at least in any non-communist country that
I know.
I also don't understand the whole decision circling back, endlessly, to
restrictive policies when nobody actually seems to want IPv6 (assuming
this is still what we're talking about)
At the moment I would like to get an IPv6 block for one of the transit networks we manage. They are being prevented from trying IPv6 because I can't get a PI block for it and it doesn't, as such, have any customers to which it allocates space. I want PI
space for it because the intention is for this network to be "spun off" and become self-managing. And, I see no reason that management of this network might not be out-sourced to some distant country, so I want this block to be routed, please.
Folks are going to come to terms with the fact that the v6 routing table is going to have large numbers of entries. Attempts to prevent this can only be done with restrictive policies, as you say. If we *don't* want the v6 routing table to have more than
a few entries, we better adopt strictly geographical addressing (like the phone system) and hand the whole thing over to the ITU.
-- Tim
|
|
|
|
