how 200 /48's fails the job [Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria]
- Previous message (by thread): how 200 /48's fails the job [Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria]
- Next message (by thread): how 200 /48's fails the job [Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria]
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Pekka Savola
pekkas at netcore.fi
Wed Apr 6 00:48:23 CEST 2005
On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, Oliver Bartels wrote: > On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 23:13:59 +0300 (EEST), Pekka Savola wrote: >> Could you clarify, why do you think "200 customers" fails as a meter >> for largeness ? > > Do you really think big is good, small is bad, and just the > big ISP's will promote IPv6 ? [...] Why do you think you require a /32 to "promote IPv6". Don't answer.. it was a rhetoric question :) My own, small consulting company (with dozens of customers) can certainly promote v6, but I have no delusions of grandeour that it would be best from the global perspective to allow such or even larger companies, whether calling themselves ISPs or not, to obtain a /32. Is a bit of unselfishness too much to ask ? -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
- Previous message (by thread): how 200 /48's fails the job [Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria]
- Next message (by thread): how 200 /48's fails the job [Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria]
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]