Re: [off-topic] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 Moved to Review Phase (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)

[bmanning@localhost]

> | 	"we" in this case is me and the mouse in my pocket.
> | 	and yes, this is tossing the /64 stricture.  the house
> | 	network is nicely tucked into a /112 - although we advertize
> | 	a /48 covering prefix so it will get transit.  
> good for you, bill. you get to do things different just because you can AND the
> world gets to see you adhere to what we collectively regard as good practice.
> 
> I don't think I have your /48 in my routing tables. Sorry it didn't work out.
> ---------- - -    - - -+- - -    - - ----------
> Pim van Pelt                 Email: pim@localhost

	and good for you. although I expect your use of the term "we",
	might be different than my own.  the picture you paint, bill v. the
	world - is only slightly off kilter.  

	sorry that you chose to filter, but that is every ISP's
	perogative ... or more strongly, every ISP has an obligation
	to establish which prefixes they will and will not accept.
	leaning on a third party (IETF, RIR) to set those policies
	for you might be an abbrogation of responsibility.


--bill