Válasz: Re: Válasz: [GLOBAL-V6] RE: How to reduce the junk applications?
Denesh, The most probably you know the answers ;-) 1, We applied restrictions on IPv4 LIRs. This is "the slow start mechanism". Restrictions are not for themself. The goal of hardening the life of a new LIR was just to filter off a half million students, that might want to create a LIR, just to decorate their business card. There are many-many small business unit that may pay the fees to become a registry, however, not able to provide a service that realy need a LIR. Too many LIR is against routability. I would not recommend an address allocation strategy that kills the network. Today some ISPs filters IPv4 /24 announcements - if we are not careful with IPv6 LIRs, we will end up of filtering of the minimum allocation to a LIR. Therefore I recommend to think about the network as a whole. I like the liberty however I do not like the mess. 2, You might heard about big research initiatives for the introduction of IPv6 service. A good example is 6net. 6NET will have initially its own infrastructure, and there is a good reason behind: it would be too risky to use a production network. This is not the eventual address allocation restriction that will stop new IPv6-only companies to pop up, but the basic limitations of the technology and the installed services. Applying restrictions in the transition period is better than creating a mess. Best, Geza Denesh Bhabuta <denesh@cyberstrider.net> d�tum: 2002.02.08 14:23:35 K�rem, v�laszoljon C�mzett Denesh Bhabuta <denesh@cyberstrider.net> C�mzett: Turch�nyi G�za/PKI/HTC2@HTC2 M�solat: "Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet" <woeber@cc.univie.ac.at>, global-v6@lists.apnic.net, ipv6-wg@ripe.net T�rgy: Re: V�lasz: [GLOBAL-V6] RE: How to reduce the junk applications? On Fri, Feb 08, 2002 at 02:17:29PM +0100, turchanyi.geza@ln.matav.hu (turchanyi.geza@ln.matav.hu) wrote: Re: V�lasz: [GLOBAL-V6] RE: How to reduce the junk applications?
1, I do not think that it is possible to create a brand new ISP without IPv4 experience, therefore my suggestion is not a restriction for a real ISP, just for the virtual ones.
I disagree on two points Firstly, what is an ISP (real or virtual) - define one. Secondly, IPv4 experience? What experience? registry experience, transport experience, network harware experience? what about those 'new' ISPs that have employed the services of, or even recruited, a person who had 10 years IPv4 experience. Company is new.. but the experience is old.. who are we to say that an ISP is experienced or not? -- Denesh Bhabuta Cyberstrider Limited - www.cyberstrider.net Aexiomus Limited - www.aexiomus.net - Computer shop now live me.uk domains released - http://www.cyberstrider.net/meuk.shtml
On Mon, 11 Feb 2002 turchanyi.geza@ln.matav.hu wrote:
2, You might heard about big research initiatives for the introduction of IPv6 service. A good example is 6net.
6NET will have initially its own infrastructure, and there is a good reason behind: it would be too risky to use a production network.
This is not the eventual address allocation restriction that will stop new IPv6-only companies to pop up, but the basic limitations of the technology and the installed services.
I disagree; if 6NET were a commercial project, not a EC-funded research and development project, we would want IPv6 address space. With your rules, we could not get it, which is very bad. Likewise with the Euro6IX project, where the partners are predominantly telcos rather than NRENs. Tim
participants (2)
-
Tim Chown -
turchanyi.geza@ln.matav.hu