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 11:53:20 CEST 2005
On Wed, 6 Apr 2005, Elmar K. Bins wrote: >> 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? They should never be in the global routing table. > Under what circumstances would your idea of eligibility change? That can be debated, but hopefully not in this thread or list. I'm asking you guys :) Getting 200 real customers is one acceptable circumtance. -- 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 ]