[address-policy-wg] Proposal 2010-02
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2010-02
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2010-02
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Richard Hartmann
richih.mailinglist at gmail.com
Fri Oct 29 00:22:14 CEST 2010
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 22:54, Hannigan, Martin <marty at akamai.com> wrote: > While my number > looks high, it could go either way. It could be higher which would mean that > the damage would be greater or it could be lower which means that it's "not > so bad" where YMMV. Which basically boils down to "no one can possibly know". Also, I doubt that the cost for prefixes will be strictly linear. It's in the nature of depletion that not everyone can get what they need/want. The proposal clearly states that its main focus is to prevent prefix hogging if possible and thus limit the impact of a probably frantic migration period and lower the barrier of entry for new LIRs. And while I sincerely hope that IPv6 migration will happen fast, there will definitely be a time when IPv4 will be a hard requirement for any LIR that wants to compete. As you admit yourself, other than doing nothing you don't know of any alternative. Richard
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2010-02
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2010-02
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]