[address-policy-wg] 2010-02 New Draft Document Published (Allocations from the last /8)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-02 New Draft Document Published (Allocations from the last /8)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-02 New Draft Document Published (Allocations from the last /8)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Max Tulyev
president at ukraine.su
Thu Jul 8 17:16:22 CEST 2010
I'm about independence from upstream provider or other telecom-engaged entity, not about payments. Gennady A. написав(ла): > Which independency you are talking about? > Currently, PIs are not actually independent. To keep them running, PI > user also have to pay support fee, like if he uses PA address space. > > 2010/7/7 Max Tulyev <president at ukraine.su>: >> Gennady, >> >> for now it is bad. But when there will be a lack of IPv4, we have to >> sacrifice aggregation in favour to conservation. >> >> The difference is the independence. PA is not. >> >> Gennady A. написав(ла): >>> Max, >>> /29 in the global routing table is a bad thing. >>> >>> Those who need multihoming may use PA address space. Now, when >>> contracts to support address space are necessery, there isn't much >>> dfference between PI and PA. >> -- >> WBR, >> Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO) >> >> > > > -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-02 New Draft Document Published (Allocations from the last /8)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-02 New Draft Document Published (Allocations from the last /8)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]