[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 ]
Garry Glendown
garry at nethinks.com
Wed Jan 16 10:55:25 CET 2008
michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: >> - small one-time fee (100-200EUR?) for non-routable PI (take >> them out of a defined /32 or so which is/can/should be >> filtered by ISPs) >> > What is non-routable PI? > What can you do with it that you cannot do with a ULA prefix? > Not routed for things like VPN-Connections and the likes ... users sometimes need unique IP addresses, as the chance of running into a customer/partner that happens to use the same RFC networks is growing ... IPv6 will make the chances smaller, but getting a PI assigned for such purposes would eliminate that problem. -garry
- 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 ]