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 12:18:49 CEST 2005
pekkas at netcore.fi (Pekka Savola) wrote: > >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. You are a modest person. I feel the same about our "home network", btw.; but that's because I trust my transit providers and I know how to renumber, should the need arise. > Getting 200 real customers is one acceptable circumtance. I believe the "200" poses a problem for most of the typical early adopters, who are not among the Tier 1 folks, but in Tiers 2 and 3 (if you think in tiered terms). And of course, that still doesn't solve the "crucial end site" problems, which anyway are not the issue in this thread. I favour v6 PI, but anybodies mileage may vary. 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 ]