At 18:27 07/12/2004, Joe Abley wrote:
On 7 Dec 2004, at 12:18, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
What is the particular thing that you find so useful, here? That some
LIRs are not as easy to deal with as others?
That the affirmation that no RIR has ever refused an IPv4 chunk is wrong,
and that its documented here while when it was made no one objected.
RENATER is not an RIR.
Please let us not try to make a point: we want to _understand_ why NATs
develop more than IPv6. RENATER is an acknowledged leader in promoting
IPv6: they are certainly not concerned. What is interesting is the way
users may perceive the culture deduced from the RIR policy or strategy
(which may very well work for others). The interest is not to know who is
"right" (no one is right or wrong) but why there are more NATs than IPv6
and to be able to change that. What works in some/most today cases may not
work in every case. I feel, and I try to document, it may be because we
want to discuss about a single kind of users (ourselves and operators),
rather than to listen to them all (the small networks, home networks). The
customer is always right ... all the customers if we want them all.
What counts is not the way the network is built, but the way the users
understand it.
jfc
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf