"Brian" == Brian E Carpenter <brian(_at_)hursley(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com>
Brian> Sean Doran wrote:
>> "David R. Conrad" <David(_dot_)Conrad(_at_)nominum(_dot_)com> writes:
>> > Only transit providers (whatever they are) should be getting v6 >
>> addresses from the registries.
>> Since deployment seems to be based initially upon virtual topologies
>> that are disjoint from the underlying IPv4 topology (i.e., using
>> tunnels), surely anyone who is open to allowing other sites to connect
>> to their virtual topology should be eligible for address space?
Brian> Yes, but that doesn't *necessarily* mean a prefix short enough to
Brian> be in the (hopefully small) default free table. If someone is
Brian> setting up a regional virtual topology they begin to look like a
Brian> metro exchange and something longer than a /29 TLA prefix might be
Brian> OK. But I tend to agree with Sean.
Bingo. That's what we (a group of interested parties, not Solidum) are
looking to setup among five friendly small/medium sized ISPs that happen to
share co-location space.
:!mcr!: | Solidum Systems Corporation, http://www.solidum.com
Michael Richardson |For a better connected world,where data flows faster<tm>