On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 08:49:05PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 03:39:53PM +0100, Carlos Morgado wrote:
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 04:22:07PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
What I am saying is that the current IPv6 allocation policy was made with the needs of people in mind that want to connect to "the global Internet",
Not even that, as it doesn't take into account transit providers.
Yes, I'm aware of that. Most of those do have some sort of end customers, though, and should easily be able to get address space under the current policy.
In my particular case it would be something of a stretch. We are almost a pure transit provider, most of our clients have their own address space and are multihomed. The ones that are using delegations from our space are fairly small. Also, it's a chicken/egg problem. I can draw up a plan with planned allocations for current customers but I can't commit to customer deploy dates - I can't even commit to they being our costumers a month from now. In the mean while, I can't promise IPv6 transits to our costumers if I'm not sure I can deliver them. So, in order to allocate the resources to bootstrap the process I need to be "optimist" in my allocation plans ;)
For those that can't, the policy needs to be adopted. The to-be-formed editorial committee needs to find a solution here.
I'm sorry I missed the ipv6-wg meeting, was this problem discussed ? I'm also curious to know about other providers sufering from this problem and what solutions they propose. cheers -- Carlos Morgado <chbm@cprm.net> - Internet Engineering - Phone +351 214146594 GPG key: 0x75E451E2 FP: B98B 222B F276 18C0 266B 599D 93A1 A3FB 75E4 51E2 The views expressed above do not bind my employer.