| | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
You're here: Home |
On Jan 17, 2007, at 12:51 AM, Roger Jorgensen wrote:
I really wish people could stop using the phrases PI and PA when talking about IPv6.
Why?
I don´t see any reason why implementing PI in IPv6 at all.
This seems to be at odds with the way policies have been developing within the various RIRs, e.g., <http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/ proposals/prop-035-v002.html>, <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/ proposals/2006-01.html>, <http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/ 2005_1.html>, and <http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/afpol- v60604.htm>.
Larger corp should be able to get a IPv6 block and if it´s not possible, change the policies so it become possible.
Of course, somebody will need to define "larger".
And we just move problems with us to IPv6 from IPV4 instead of solve the basic problem,
Yes, we are.
everyone want IP space but not everyone can get it, we need to find a common place in the middle somewhere.PI will not be the solution.
Without a way of allowing provider independence, I suspect NAT will be the solution.
Rgds, -drc
