[address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Elmar K. Bins
elmi at 4ever.de
Wed Jan 16 10:21:06 CET 2008
Hi Garry, second all of this... garry at nethinks.com (Garry Glendown) wrote: > - /48, not /56 > - small yearly fee (100-200€?) for routable PI > - small one-time fee (100-200€?) for non-routable PI (take them out of a > defined /32 or so which is/can/should be filtered by ISPs) > - don't automatically distribute IPv6 space (both PI and LIRs) - e.g., > our customers with PI I don't see using IPv6 within at least the next 5 > years (we've had v6 available for several years ...). Instead, make > initial v6 applications and allocations "painless", allowing for any PI > owners to just "lift their hand" and they receive their v6-PI (/48) for > just paying ;) ...but: Don't forget the LIRs-that-have-no-customers, please. We're in this peculiar situation: We are heavily multihomed in v4 but cannot get any v6; we have to make do with an assignment from one of our transits and agreements with the others to carry that assignment separately (and not filter it). Yours, Elmi. -- "Hinken ist kein Mangel eines Vergleichs, sondern sollte als wesentliche Eigenschaft von Vergleichen angesehen werden." (Marius Fränzel in desd) --------------------------------------------------------------[ ELMI-RIPE ]---
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]