[members-discuss] [EXTERNAL] Re: New Charging Scheme
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [EXTERNAL] Re: New Charging Scheme
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [EXTERNAL] Re: New Charging Scheme
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jan Zorz - Go6
jan at go6.si
Tue Feb 19 12:51:10 CET 2019
On 19/02/2019 12:44, Patterson, Richard (Sky Network Services (SNS)) wrote: > We're perhaps a less common case with a greenfield deployment, large > IPv6-only focused deployment from day one, large scale forecasts and > proven track record. We did get there in end, but it was a rather > frustrating process with lots of back and forth emails via a > ticketing system, conference calls, challenging and requests for > commercially sensitive information around forecasts and topology > deployments (without RIPE being willing to sign NDAs). I was very > close to giving up and designing around /56 PDs for customers instead > of /48s. This shouldn't be the experience you get if you are enthusiastic about deploying IPv6 to end customers. This is just plain wrong. I understand that if we stick strictly to the policy this can be interpreted as a valid process, but I still think this shouldn't be the default in such cases. > > It felt like the IPv4-conservative approach was being applied to > IPv6, and that kind of defeats the purpose IMO. Agreed 100%. Cheers, Jan
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [EXTERNAL] Re: New Charging Scheme
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [EXTERNAL] Re: New Charging Scheme
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]