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 ]
Elmar K. Bins
elmi at 4ever.de
Wed Apr 6 10:50:27 CEST 2005
pekkas at netcore.fi (Pekka Savola) wrote: > >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 :) I'm not sure whether you've gotten notice of the issue not being the size, but access to a prefix _at all_. Your sarcasm seems out of place... > 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. Would you - if I may ask - believe "such or even larger companies" to be eligible for an independently routable prefix at all, or, more clearly spoken, eligible for a slot int the global routing table? Under what circumstances would your idea of eligibility change? Elmar. -- "Begehe nur nicht den Fehler, Meinung durch Sachverstand zu substituieren." (PLemken, <bu6o7e$e6v0p$2 at ID-31.news.uni-berlin.de>) --------------------------------------------------------------[ ELMI-RIPE ]---
- 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 ]