[address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it lessdestructive
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it lessdestructive
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Mon May 1 17:43:42 CEST 2006
Hi, On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 02:38:56PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > > Most (if not all) larger hosting providers I know are LIRs, so this > > question really doesn't apply. > Then we will arrive at "LIRs are global pain to everybody else", and > nothing has changed. Which is touching the core of the problem: "can we agree upon who should be allowed to put a route into my routers"? LIRs seem to be a good choice, because many (most?) of them *do* allocate for third parties (which is a good thing for global aggregation) - and even for those that don't, the fact that there is a recurring fee involved shifts the balance a bit away from "PI is purely convenient for the holder and puts the costs only on everybody else" to "a portable IP block *does* have some costs attached". So in the end, we might want to abandon the "IPv6 PI" approaches, and radically change (loosen) the "IPv6 PA" policy. But *I* am not the one to decide that - I follow the discussions, and try to extract some sort of workable (for the next few years) compromise between the extreme positions, which will then re-enter the discussion. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 92315 SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it lessdestructive
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]