In IPv4 - NAT could help them. In IPv6 - thoroughly arranged network can do this. There is a goal in the RIPE NCC policy - not to waste the address space. If we want to live in terms of "probability" and "global charity" we could easily drop this matter at all! Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat

-----Original Message----- From: Dmitry Kiselev [mailto:dmitry@volia.net] Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 2:33 PM To: Potapov Vladislav Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy)

Hello!

On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 02:15:08PM +0400, poty@iiat.ru wrote:

...

...

...

If a company wants to use interconnection with other companies - it is their PRIVATE deal. And they should use their PRIVATE means for achieving that!

The TCP/IP Technology (including the resources to uniquely identify the individual components) are - and indeed should continue to be - accessible to the full community. Whether using this stuff on the "Internet" or for some other purpose is not a discriminating factor here. I fully agree with that! But companies, not involved in the communication with other parties, called the Internet, should create their own uniqueness for themselves. Why it should be achieved by help of irrelevant (read - the Internet) party?

OK, but what they should do if one of them decide to come to Internet? Renumber a whole mesh to avoid duplicates?

If I remember correctly, few years ago FastWeb went through silimar situation with their modem's address space. Why we should push some parties to this?

-- Dmitry Kiselev