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 ]
Florian Weimer
fw at deneb.enyo.de
Wed Apr 6 15:09:39 CEST 2005
* Elmar K. Bins: >> 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). Well, if the "200" is a problem, just go ahead and open a bot shell provider (or some kind of reselling service for the actual BSPs). Using address space for the sole purpose of vanity host names is completely legit. 8-)
- 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 ]