[address-policy-wg] New version of 2006-1 IPv6 PI Policy Proposal
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] New version of 2006-1 IPv6 PI Policy Proposal
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Assignments for Critical Infrastruction
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
lists-ripe at c4inet.net
lists-ripe at c4inet.net
Mon Oct 27 17:14:15 CET 2008
Hi Jordi, all, On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 05:49:49PM +0400, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > Typically, such organisations will require the PI assignment to become > Multihomed as happens for IPv4, but there may be other reason behind > requests. This policy proposal is only trying to cover this type of PI > assignments (for example data centers which are not an ISP, or content > providers). What about a more radical proposal, ie. eliminating the LIR/End User distinction altogether? Since so many LIRs are, ipso facto, end-users (as Jordi points out above) the distinction becomes more and more historical anyway. Obviously, this would not be workable for v4 space, but I really see no reason not to have just one type of allocation in ipv6. This would also completely eliminate the need for PIv6. Regards, Sascha Luck
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] New version of 2006-1 IPv6 PI Policy Proposal
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Assignments for Critical Infrastruction
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]