[address-policy-wg] Re: Say *YES* to PI space to anyone, but *NO* to small entities
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Say *YES* to PI space to anyone, but *NO* to small entities
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Say *YES* to PI space to anyone, but *NO* to small entities
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Roger Jorgensen
rogerj at jorgensen.no
Mon Apr 24 22:24:00 CEST 2006
On Mon, 24 Apr 2006, Daniel Roesen wrote: > On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 09:16:23PM +0900, Masataka Ohta wrote: > > If renumbering is so painful and fairness is still required, even > > top level ISPs with PI space should also be forced renumbering. > Very good point. Actually, only true "tier 1" ISPs (those with no > default routing and all external connections being either peers or > customers... every ISP tech will understand what I mean, but this > definition hair can be spliced infinitely) really _need_ PI. ALL others > can use PA. This would bring the DFZ down to a very small 2-figure count > of routes. :-) <snip> Combine this with geoip one way or another and we have something that should solve all multihoming/PI problems as I see it... But do we really want to put all our routes in the hand of a very few ISP's? That's the only problem. Another way of doing this, "tier 1" within a RIR justify a PI allocation? -- ------------------------------ Roger Jorgensen | roger at jorgensen.no | - IPv6 is The Key! -------------------------------------------------------
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Say *YES* to PI space to anyone, but *NO* to small entities
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Say *YES* to PI space to anyone, but *NO* to small entities
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]