Hi, On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 09:54:59AM +0200, Joao Damas wrote:
On 21 Jun, 2004, at 17:00, Havard Eidnes wrote:
I really fail to see the reason behind the 200 other organisation rule - perhaps someone would like to explain the logic.
I think the logic is that the RIRs are trying to portion out routing space so that we don't get a global routing table explosion in IPv6 in the same way we have (had) in IPv4. To acheive this, they need to make sure that the small ISPs don't get their own allocation,
If this is true, it is really disturbing given that the RIPE NCC was [..]
The "200 user" criteria came from the ARIN and APNIC communities, not from the RIRs. [..]
Also disturbing is that, while there are groups working on proposing new solutions to the multihoming problem, the policy seems to reflect a conviction that they will fail and therefore there need to be constraints imposed at a table size of a few hundred entries.
I can't see the connection. The whole point of the multi6 group is to find multihoming solutions that do *not* need a global routing table slot. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 60210 (58081) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299