[address-policy-wg] getting second IPv6 PA as a LIR
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] getting second IPv6 PA as a LIR
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] getting second IPv6 PA as a LIR
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Mikael Abrahamsson
swmike at swm.pp.se
Tue May 3 13:24:13 CEST 2011
On Tue, 3 May 2011, Alex Vishnyakov wrote: > They will rather use NAT IPv4 or PA IPv6, as Marcin Kuczera described. > Also I fully agree with Daniel Suchy. I'm fine with them using NAT. > We have now around 350 customers with PI IPv4 blocks and our customers > decided to NOT implement IPv6 till IPv6 PI policy will not change. > Just imagine - we have now around 350 PI IPv4 blocks and 10 PI IPv6, > it doesn't look like a "IPv6 act now " ! Listen, I don't care about your issues. I'm looking global here. PI is a way to cut costs for future renumbering, for some this is a real issue and they'll be prepared to pay. For some it's just a "nice to have" and they won't use it, and then we won't have to carry their PI in the DFZ. > So, during last year no one user of PI IPv4 became a LIR. They simply > ignore it. So if we will not change the IPv6 policy, these customers > will not implement IPv6 in their networks, or will implement it with > using of PA IPv6 addresses of LIR, but routing table will still growth. No, because people who sub-delegate from /32 PA space won't get their routes spread, just like the /24 situation for IPv4. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] getting second IPv6 PA as a LIR
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] getting second IPv6 PA as a LIR
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]