[address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
poty at iiat.ru
poty at iiat.ru
Mon Jun 1 12:48:08 CEST 2009
In IPv4 - NAT could help them. In IPv6 - thoroughly arranged network can do this. There is a goal in the RIPE NCC policy - not to waste the address space. If we want to live in terms of "probability" and "global charity" we could easily drop this matter at all! Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat > -----Original Message----- > From: Dmitry Kiselev [mailto:dmitry at volia.net] > Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 2:33 PM > To: Potapov Vladislav > Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New > Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address > Allocation Policy) > > Hello! > > On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 02:15:08PM +0400, poty at iiat.ru wrote: > > > > > If a company wants to use interconnection with other companies - > > > > it is their PRIVATE deal. And they should use their PRIVATE means > > for > > > > achieving that! > > > > > > The TCP/IP Technology (including the resources to uniquely identify > > the > > > individual components) are - and indeed should continue to be - > > > accessible > > > to the full community. Whether using this stuff on the "Internet" > or > > > for > > > some other purpose is not a discriminating factor here. > > I fully agree with that! But companies, not involved in the > > communication with other parties, called the Internet, should create > > their own uniqueness for themselves. Why it should be achieved by > help > > of irrelevant (read - the Internet) party? > > > OK, but what they should do if one of them decide to come to Internet? > Renumber a whole mesh to avoid duplicates? > > If I remember correctly, few years ago FastWeb went through silimar > situation > with their modem's address space. Why we should push some parties to > this? > > -- > Dmitry Kiselev
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]