[ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jørgen Hovland
jorgen at hovland.cx
Mon Nov 28 19:59:34 CET 2005
-----Original Message----- From: Hans Petter Holen [mailto:hph at oslo.net] Sent: 28. november 2005 19:16 Jørgen Hovland wrote: >> - >> 1. No PI. _Only_ network operators get a prefix. > >I am an operator of a network - do I get a prefix ? (we have lots of >computers and need lots of IP addresses: currently the 5 PCs, 2 >printers, a phone and some PDA and a server online) > >I guess you need to define the criteria in some other way. Perhaps >beeing registered with the national regulator True. The existing RIPE 200 customer rule for ipv6 PA for instance. > 2. Customers of network operators can at any time change provider and > take their assigned prefix with them. The new provider will announce > it as a more specific overriding the aggregate. If the customer > decides to get multiple providers, then the network operator with the > /32 could also announce a more specific. > > In the country I live in I can change telecom provider and take my > phone number with me to the new provider. Why shouldn't I be able to > do that with internet providers? >Maybe we live in the same country ? We sure do (well at least since a few months ago)! > The National Reference DataBase >NRDB will take care of the routing (http://www.nrdb.no - at some point >in time I guess they will move to ENUM - so perhaps jump directly to >such a solution. But then it will be more difficult to implement the >payment model they have. (It costs the operator more to be connected to >this database than to get IP addressess from RIPE in addition there is >a quarterly service fee to port numbers and even a per lookup fee) > >> Yes, it will somehow create millions/billions of prefixes (atleasat >> with todays routing technology/protocols). Network operators should be >> able to handle that hence rule #1. > >Why should my last provider carry my traffic after I switch provider ? >In POTS this may work because there is elaborate interconnect agreements >between the providers - I dont know of too may ISPs doing pr user >accounting of transit any more. The only thing the last provider has to pay for is the LIR fee for their /32, not the traffic. More specific routes usually get priority unless Andres magic 32 constant is implemented. I was talking about putting these prefixes in dfz or not. You decide by the amount of interconnections you got. Then you would also probably have to decide a payment model, but it is not my business what you do. >From the consumer point of view - this is great - from a routing point >of view and ISP interconnect point of view - I am not quite sure... Yes thats a question I wasnt even sure about myself. Cheers, Joergen Hovland
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]