[address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Nils Ketelsen
nils at druecke.strg-alt-entf.org
Mon Jul 5 14:39:15 CEST 2004
On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 11:17:03AM +0100, Chris Cain wrote: > Since the device count is not the limited resource but the route count > is how about a completely different size measure. > > As a first attempt: > 1. Define a list of interconnect points (NAPS/interconnect exchanges) > This would be fairly strict with only the main interconnect points in > each country qualifying. But wouldn't that be a step into enforcing a more centralized internet infrastructure? I always thought that you want it as decentralized as possible? And this would give the peering point in the list an unfair advantage over alternative peering points in the area. I can already see peering points sueing the ripe to get on that list... And I have to admit they are right, as the RIPE should not assign monopolies. Nils -- Und wenn er einen MCSE hat, dann ist er zertifizierter Bootmanager. [ihr.name at strg-alt-entf.org (Ralph Angenendt) in de.alt.sysadmin.recovery]
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "d)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]