[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 ]
Sascha Luck
ripe-lst at eirconnect.net
Mon Jun 14 13:08:13 CEST 2004
On Mon 14 Jun 2004 10:38, Oliver Bartels wrote: > If IPv6 should ever get some significant growth, please > *make it as easy as possible* to implement it. > Please *avoid unnecessary buerocracy*. There was a proposal, at RIPE-48, to abolish the 200 customer requirement altogether. (Don't remember by whom). The reasoning being that it raises the bar to IPv6 adoption unneccessarily. For the record, I support this argument. > It is very unlikely that some LIR would *only* make /64 assignments > (DSL ?), but: Mobile telcos? > In my view it was the fear that small blocks would increase the > IPv6 global routing table size. This is a technical problem and thus a technical solution should be looked for. Why should hardware vendors determine IP allocation policy? Best regards, Sascha Luck -- Eirconnect | voice: 353 21 2307195 NSC Campus | fax: 353 21 2307197 Mahon, Cork | mailto:sascha at eirconnect.net Ireland | http://www.eirconnect.net
- 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 ]