North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: Multi-6 [WAS: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google]
- From: Christopher L. Morrow
- Date: Sat Sep 10 03:39:59 2005
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> [Perhaps this thread should migrate to Multi6?]
perhaps... then jason can argue this instead of me :)
> On Sep 9, 2005, at 11:55 PM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
> > On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Daniel Golding wrote:
> >> Getting back on-topic - how can this be? I thought only service
> >> providers
> >> (with downstream customers) could get PI v6 space. Isn't this what
> >> policy
> >> proposal 2005-1 is about? Can someone (from ARIN?) explain the
> >> current
> >> policy?
> > what if they didn't ask for a prefix but instead just hammered their
> > providers for /48's? What's the difference to them anyway?
> > (provided we
> > are just talking about them lighting up www.google.com in v6 of
> > course)
> > If they wanted to start offering more 'services' (ip services
> > perhaps?)
> > then they could say they were a 'provider' (All they need is a plan to
> > support 200 customers to get a /32) and start the magic of /32-ness...
> Suppose they not only have no plan but couldn't really put together a
> plan to support 200 customers? Does this mean Google, or any other
> content provider, is "unworthy" of globally routeable space?
apparently that's the plan yes, or so say the current decision
makers/policy-makers/'the-man'... take it up with them, in fact, everyone
should be thinking this through as you are/have and thinking about the
implications of the current policies related to v6 address allocations,
subnetting 'standards' and even multi-homing.
> IPv6 is a nice idea, and as soon as people realize that ISPs are not
> the only organizations who have a need to multi-home - and I mean
> really multi-home, not stupid work-arounds - then it might actually
> start to happen.
Agreed, so... hopefully others will start to participate in the process to
change things for the 'better'. To make sure that the policies/procedures
are more closely aligned with operational requirements/needs. It seems
that lots of folks are of the belief that:
1) its not important to worry about this 'today'
2) the 'right decision' will get made and 'things will just work out'
3) 'certainly someone else will argue my point for me'
(or some combination of that grouping...) It looks to me, and I'm new at
this so I may be wrong, that none of the above really is true :( The
current train for ipv6 is on the tracks and headed your way whether you
like it or not, and it's not headed your way to pick you up :(
The process/standards bodies need more operators to get involved so that
standards we can deploy/live-with make it to fruitition.
Thanks for the tee :)