[address-policy-wg] Re: Re: IPv6 PI resource question - Not for ISP but hosting
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Re: IPv6 PI resource question - Not for ISP but hosting
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI resource question - Not for ISP but hosting
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sander Steffann
sander at steffann.nl
Tue Feb 15 23:09:50 CET 2011
> What I see coming is that ULA + NAT will be vast IPv6 reality. Thanks > that the IPv6 end-to-end promise is killed off again via restrictive > policies made by ISPs for ISPs. I'm sorry, but this working group is not restricted to ISPs. It's open for *everyone*. >> - They already provide access services with IPv4 PI space >> According to the current policy they should become an LIR and get PA space. > > So just "make them pay a penalty". They are not aggregating customers, > so no good reason for PA other than artificial hurdle. ??? This situation is _all_ about aggregating customers... >> If we (=working group) decide that there should be IPv6 PI for these or >> other purposes, let's discuss that. This is a working group. > > A working group with almost zero lobby for non-LIRs. Don't start fights > you cannot win. The is no lobby. There is no such thing here as 'a fight you cannot win'. The only reason that a proposal doesn't reach consensus is when not enough people care, or if there are good arguments against the proposal. Please get non-LIRs to participate here to form a workable solution. You seem to propose PI space as a solution, someone suggested LISP as a solution, let's see what is a workable solution for everybody involved. (Yes: everybody, both ISPs and Enterprises) >> If you want to see something changed: write a proposal and it will be >> discussed! > > Yes, between folks who have zero business interest for such a proposal > to pass. See above - a fight you cannot win. > > Non-LIRs aren't organized enough to have any effective influence on RIR > policy development process. Nobody here is 'organized'. Everybody speaks for him/herself here. This working group consists of people, not organizations... Sander
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Re: IPv6 PI resource question - Not for ISP but hosting
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI resource question - Not for ISP but hosting
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]