Hi, on your other wish for clarification: On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 05:36:28PM +0200, Laura Cobley wrote:
"To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an organisation must [...] plan to provide IPv6 connectivity to organisations to which it will assign /48s by advertising that connectivity through its single aggregated address allocation"
LIRs who operate closed/private networks appear not to qualify because the address space in these networks will not be advertised. Was this the community's intention?
At the time this was written, "site-local" addresses where considered as the solution for these networks. Since then, they have mostly been deprecated, but a new solution (draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-04.txt) seems to be in sight. I've seem some comments to the extent of "we must be very liberal here". The more interesting question is: does it make any difference? Of course there are large numbers of enterprises that operate closed networks, but does anyone have numbers about the number of *LIRs* that purposely and permanently do not connect their PA-allocated network blocks to "the Internet", while still paying yearly RIR membership fees? 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