| | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
You're here: Home |
Hi.
Yes. But then they need an upstream provider that is willing to announce
a single-homed customer /32 - which might just be much more expensive than
giving the end site a /48 of their space. Which I could imagine as a
way to let market regulate whether someone "needs" their own /32.
Sure if ISPs are willing to filter them. If there are lots of them
and they aren't aggregatable then the filters will be long. I
suspect they'll end up being the swamp and everyone will end up
carrying them even if they don't want to. History repeats itself
on many levels...
I am truly convinced that we can NOT solve the "I want to be independent"
problem at registry level (or at least "not without doing real harm to
some of the people we want to be 'in'").
Adding a rule like "you get a /32 only if you're multihomed" will make
things worse, because "they" will then get a /32 *and* an AS number.
I agree. But we're not currently saying that you get a /32
if you're multihomed, we're saying that you get a /32 if you're
willing to pay money. How about you get a /32 if you can justify
at least some reasonable level of utilization? That could be
that you currently have a minimum allocation of IPv4 space from a
registry already. It could be any number of things
probably less restrictive than what was on the table until recently.
Then sure you can get one of you are whoever, but at least you
have some real justification for having a block from a registry
and not your upstream.
Maybe we should look at the people you refer to as wanting to be "in"
and figure out what distinguishes them from just some end user who
should have a /48 from their upstream...?
---CJ
-
- This list (global-v6) is handled by majordomo@lists.apnic.net