On Thu, 18 Nov 2004, Jon Allen Boone wrote:
On Nov 18, 2004, at 20:24, Joe Abley wrote:
On 18 Nov 2004, at 13:30, Franck Martin wrote:
For the moment what I'm working on is on ensuring that countries can
get assigned a reasonable amount of IPv6 space. A lot of countries
are below radar in the IPv6 assignement. When you have a population
of less than 100,000 and when the IPv6 minimum allocation caters for
every human, pig, horse, dog and grain of sand of that country....
Just in case anybody here else thinks that the vastness of a /32
presents a justification problem for applying for address space, let
it be known that (under current RIR policies, APNIC included) this is
not the case.
All an ISP (in Tuvalu or Fiji or Vanuatu or anywhere else) needs to do
is say to APNIC "I am an ISP, and I have a plan to hook up 200
customers with v6 in the next two years. Those customers will need
addresses, so please give me a /32." The RIR might ask you a few
questions about your plans, but assuming they sound plausible, the
answer will be "yes, here you go."
None of the RIRs currently say "please justify why you need to be able
to number devices in 4294967296 subnets, and why each of those subnets
needs to be big enough to number 18446744073709551616 devices". If
they did, nobody would have v6 address space today.
IPv6 and IPv4 allocation policies are different.
We just had this thread on NANOG. I think it's v6 policy myth month,
or something :-)
And non-ISPs [the folks whom some think IPv6 can successfully be
deployed w/out help from the ISPs] get them exactly how?
tunnels.
--jon
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
sleekfreak pirate broadcast
http://sleekfreak.ath.cx:81/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf