This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/members-discuss@ripe.net/
[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 ]