i just watched a ripe presentation which claimed to be technology neutral, yet advised isps to use nats without telling how they break applications, blah blah blah. this is not neutral, and is, imiho, really bad advice to give to innocent people. is this ripe or lir policy? randy
Mmmm well, I didn't hear Mirjam saying "you must use NATs" in this presentation, just saying that "people can use NATs and private addresses". She did mention that they broke applications, and had known problems... Would have been helpful on the slide though. I have a feeling this is going to start another NAT war on the list. :-( philip -- At 11:59 13/05/2002 +0000, Randy Bush wrote:
i just watched a ripe presentation which claimed to be technology neutral, yet advised isps to use nats without telling how they break applications, blah blah blah. this is not neutral, and is, imiho, really bad advice to give to innocent people. is this ripe or lir policy?
randy
Hi randy, the policy advice set by the LIRs has been, to the best of my knowledge, to ask requesters whether they have considered using private addressing for their network, not to force anyone to use it. Just ask, nothing else. Where have you seen that presentation? Joao At 11:59 +0000 13/5/02, Randy Bush wrote:
i just watched a ripe presentation which claimed to be technology neutral, yet advised isps to use nats without telling how they break applications, blah blah blah. this is not neutral, and is, imiho, really bad advice to give to innocent people. is this ripe or lir policy?
randy
the policy advice set by the LIRs has been, to the best of my knowledge, to ask requesters whether they have considered using private addressing for their network, not to force anyone to use it.
there were two slides telling why/when to use nat. there were none on why not.
Where have you seen that presentation?
just now, at afnog. presented by mirjam. randy
In message <E177EuB-000PTT-00@roam.psg.com>, Randy Bush writes:
the policy advice set by the LIRs has been, to the best of my knowledge, to ask requesters whether they have considered using private addressing for their network, not to force anyone to use it.
there were two slides telling why/when to use nat. there were none on why not.
Uhm, Randy, is this some personal crusade or something ? -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
there were two slides telling why/when to use nat. there were none on why not. Uhm, Randy, is this some personal crusade or something ?
not unless you still beat your wife. nats do cause problems. we should not be presenting only one side. in this case, to an audience which has serious problems with nats and allocation. for example, one organization with a backbone that alone needs about three /24s and has over 1,600 end hosts scattered over this routed backbone. the techno-conialist ptt gives them a /29 because, among other reasons, ripe says use nats. in these countries, good engineers are an extremely scarce resource. having them spend time dealing with the aberations and consequences of nats is socially irresponsible as well as often technically unsound. randy
Hello Joao, Shouldn't RIPE NCC modify it's questions to say have you considered IPv6 instead of asking if they have thought of using NAT. If RIPE would like to further IPv6 shouldn't it asking it's customers (IPv4) about using IPv6!!!!! :-) Stuart ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joao Luis Silva Damas" <joao@ripe.net> To: "Randy Bush" <randy@psg.com>; <lir-wg@ripe.net> Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 1:17 PM Subject: Re: neutrality and nat
Hi randy,
the policy advice set by the LIRs has been, to the best of my knowledge, to ask requesters whether they have considered using private addressing for their network, not to force anyone to use it. Just ask, nothing else.
Where have you seen that presentation?
Joao
At 11:59 +0000 13/5/02, Randy Bush wrote:
i just watched a ripe presentation which claimed to be technology neutral, yet advised isps to use nats without telling how they break applications, blah blah blah. this is not neutral, and is, imiho, really bad advice to give to innocent people. is this ripe or lir policy?
randy
Hi, On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 07:52:54PM +0100, Stuart Prevost wrote:
Shouldn't RIPE NCC modify it's questions to say have you considered IPv6 instead of asking if they have thought of using NAT. If RIPE would like to further IPv6 shouldn't it asking it's customers (IPv4) about using IPv6!!!!! :-)
Good idea! gert -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 45114 (45077) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
At 19:52 +0100 14/5/02, Stuart Prevost wrote:
Hello Joao,
Shouldn't RIPE NCC modify it's questions to say have you considered IPv6 instead of asking if they have thought of using NAT. If RIPE would like to further IPv6 shouldn't it asking it's customers (IPv4) about using IPv6!!!!! :-)
LIRs ask us to be technology agnostic when dealing with requests :-) Joao
Stuart ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joao Luis Silva Damas" <joao@ripe.net> To: "Randy Bush" <randy@psg.com>; <lir-wg@ripe.net> Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 1:17 PM Subject: Re: neutrality and nat
Hi randy,
the policy advice set by the LIRs has been, to the best of my knowledge, to ask requesters whether they have considered using private addressing for their network, not to force anyone to use it. Just ask, nothing else.
Where have you seen that presentation?
Joao
At 11:59 +0000 13/5/02, Randy Bush wrote:
i just watched a ripe presentation which claimed to be technology neutral, yet advised isps to use nats without telling how they break applications, blah blah blah. this is not neutral, and is, imiho, really bad advice to give to innocent people. is this ripe or lir policy?
randy
Which was Randy's point, so if your technology agnostic why do you ask if the requesting LIR has thought of using NATs!!!!
At 19:52 +0100 14/5/02, Stuart Prevost wrote:
Hello Joao,
Shouldn't RIPE NCC modify it's questions to say have you considered IPv6 instead of asking if they have thought of using NAT. If RIPE would like to further IPv6 shouldn't it asking it's customers (IPv4) about using IPv6!!!!! :-)
LIRs ask us to be technology agnostic when dealing with requests :-)
Joao
Stuart ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joao Luis Silva Damas" <joao@ripe.net> To: "Randy Bush" <randy@psg.com>; <lir-wg@ripe.net> Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 1:17 PM Subject: Re: neutrality and nat
Hi randy,
the policy advice set by the LIRs has been, to the best of my knowledge, to ask requesters whether they have considered using private addressing for their network, not to force anyone to use it. Just ask, nothing else.
Where have you seen that presentation?
Joao
At 11:59 +0000 13/5/02, Randy Bush wrote:
i just watched a ripe presentation which claimed to be technology neutral, yet advised isps to use nats without telling how they break applications, blah blah blah. this is not neutral, and is, imiho, really bad advice to give to innocent people. is this ripe or lir policy?
randy
Which was Randy's point, so if your technology agnostic why do you ask if the requesting LIR has thought of using NATs!!!!
the inverse of the current message would be "Given their difficulties, have you checked that you're not using NATs?" probably something educational and neutral would actually be helpful. "While NATs can be useful in conserving address space in situations such as o a o b o c see blah blah "They also create problems such as o d o e o f see blah blah "We neither encourage or discourage their use, and strongly suggest that LIRs and ISPs do not encourage or discourage their use." randy
Hmm, if this is right, I think we should change policy. If I remember right this whole thing comes from the "Have you concidered using private address space" which back when it was formulated in the addressing form was before NAT was a wide spread technology. Personaly I feel it is a pity that this has turned into a "please use NAT". Therefore, I am proposing to change this policy into: - stop asking this question - stop promoting NAT Any views on this ? Hans Petter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Randy Bush" <randy@psg.com> To: <lir-wg@ripe.net> Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 1:59 PM Subject: neutrality and nat | i just watched a ripe presentation which claimed to be technology neutral, | yet advised isps to use nats without telling how they break applications, | blah blah blah. this is not neutral, and is, imiho, really bad advice to | give to innocent people. is this ripe or lir policy? | | randy |
I'd agree. I dont believe it should ever be a "please use nat (because of conservation of IPv4 space)", although it looks like it may have turned into this. Maybe a "NAT exists and may work, even partially in your situation, but may also be your worst nightmare" would be good. To be fair with NAT it has done alot towards IPv4 space conservation in sitautions where it does work ! Mark
-----Original Message----- From: owner-lir-wg@ripe.net [mailto:owner-lir-wg@ripe.net]On Behalf Of Hans Petter Holen Sent: 15 May 2002 19:33 To: Randy Bush; lir-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: neutrality and nat
Hmm, if this is right, I think we should change policy. If I remember right this whole thing comes from the "Have you concidered using private address space" which back when it was formulated in the addressing form was before NAT was a wide spread technology.
Personaly I feel it is a pity that this has turned into a "please use NAT".
Therefore, I am proposing to change this policy into:
- stop asking this question - stop promoting NAT
Any views on this ?
Hans Petter
----- Original Message ----- From: "Randy Bush" <randy@psg.com> To: <lir-wg@ripe.net> Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 1:59 PM Subject: neutrality and nat
| i just watched a ripe presentation which claimed to be technology neutral, | yet advised isps to use nats without telling how they break applications, | blah blah blah. this is not neutral, and is, imiho, really bad advice to | give to innocent people. is this ripe or lir policy? | | randy |
Therefore, I am proposing to change this policy into:
- stop asking this question - stop promoting NAT
Any views on this ?
Seconded. Peter
an important part of the rirs' job is information/education. trying to pretend that nats don't exist is not realistic. trying to explain the trade-off would be useful. the hard part would be doing so usefully without getting into a document mire. randy
Why not take this tone with the first email rather then set the mob off? On Wed, 15 May 2002, Randy Bush wrote:
an important part of the rirs' job is information/education. trying to pretend that nats don't exist is not realistic. trying to explain the trade-off would be useful. the hard part would be doing so usefully without getting into a document mire.
randy
On Wed, 2002-05-15 at 18:56, Alan Sawyer wrote:
Why not take this tone with the first email rather then set the mob off?
'Cos Randy likes winding people up. And we all expect it of him. And it usually stirs up a useful discussion as everyone rushes to arms.....
an important part of the rirs' job is information/education. trying to pretend that nats don't exist is not realistic. trying to explain the trade-off would be useful. the hard part would be doing so usefully without getting into a document mire.
I disagree. The RIRs jobs (certainly in the case of RIPE) should be the (fair) management of those resources they are responsible for - IPs and ASes etc. Information / Education should be functions iff they do not impact on the primary function and are acheived at close to zero cost - i.e. self funding. Vendors selling solutions that use NAT (ISPs, router vendors, free software projects, consultacies) should be esposing NAT if they feel they can sell it and support it. Not RIPE. NAT is *not* a general method for conserving IPv4 address space - it is a very specific and limited method as we all know - and is very very useful in many cases. Peter
an important part of the rirs' job is information/education. trying to pretend that nats don't exist is not realistic. trying to explain the trade-off would be useful. the hard part would be doing so usefully without getting into a document mire.
I disagree. The RIRs jobs (certainly in the case of RIPE) should be the (fair) management of those resources they are responsible for - IPs and ASes etc.
Information / Education should be functions iff they do not impact on the primary function and are acheived at close to zero cost - i.e. self funding.
an amazingly naive view of what actually happens at a rir. if that was anything like the case, all that would be needed would be a web form or two. the fact is that each of the N thousand applicants had to be walked through it all. and then, when a new employee came in at the LIR, it had to all happen again. there is a reason hostmasters burn out, and it ain't from pushing "accept the web form" buttons. randy
an amazingly naive view of what actually happens at a rir. if that was anything like the case, all that would be needed would be a web form or two. the fact is that each of the N thousand applicants had to be walked through it all. and then, when a new employee came in at the LIR, it had to all happen again. there is a reason hostmasters burn out, and it ain't from pushing "accept the web form" buttons.
Huh. Right. If it was a web form or two then maybe the process would actually work in a timely fashion. I get this feeling that over the (changing) years much of the paper work has been created to keep the NCC in the 'power' to which they have become accustomed. While I am sadly aware of how complex the current processes are and of many of the original reasons for this complexity, let's not forget the whole point of the NCC - to manage resources for it's 'owners'. See a recent thread on concerns why the NCC and RIPE are not the same thing - to many views (we, the members paying for it) they should be the same. Peter
Hi, On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 07:32:38PM +0200, Hans Petter Holen wrote:
Personaly I feel it is a pity that this has turned into a "please use NAT".
It has NOT. The RIPE185-bis document is clear on this.
Therefore, I am proposing to change this policy into:
- stop asking this question - stop promoting NAT
Any views on this ?
I seriously think that adding a second question "have you considered IPv6" (if only to raise awareness "IPv6 is here to stay") might be a good thing. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 45114 (45077) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
On Thu, 16 May 2002, Gert Doering wrote:
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 07:32:38PM +0200, Hans Petter Holen wrote:
Personaly I feel it is a pity that this has turned into a "please use NAT".
It has NOT. The RIPE185-bis document is clear on this.
Therefore, I am proposing to change this policy into:
- stop asking this question - stop promoting NAT
Any views on this ?
I seriously think that adding a second question "have you considered IPv6" (if only to raise awareness "IPv6 is here to stay") might be a good thing.
Would it not be very very wise to avoid doing that until *anyone* has worked out a coherent and workable IPv6 allocation/assignment policy? -- Patrick Evans Email: pre@pre.org CV: www.pre.org/pre/cv Bike: Kawasaki ZXR400L9 (for sale) "her eyes were like pissholes in the snow - they could melt right through me"
Rather than engage in a long discussion to arrive where we already are, I would ask you to allow me to point you to http://www.ripe.net/cgi-bin/webiprequest/webiprequest.cgi section "request overview template" and settle the issue of NATs and look into making what we have even better. (as a personal opinion, raising awareness of IPv6 is probably a good thing. Seeing people working with it and fixing the rough edges in the technology before widespread deployment would be a great thing to see). Cheers, Joao At 10:28 +0200 16/5/02, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 07:32:38PM +0200, Hans Petter Holen wrote:
Personaly I feel it is a pity that this has turned into a "please use NAT".
It has NOT. The RIPE185-bis document is clear on this.
Therefore, I am proposing to change this policy into:
- stop asking this question - stop promoting NAT
Any views on this ?
I seriously think that adding a second question "have you considered IPv6" (if only to raise awareness "IPv6 is here to stay") might be a good thing.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 45114 (45077)
SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
Rather than engage in a long discussion to arrive where we already are
conservatives might consider this much better than short or no discussion to arrive at some place new. :-)/2
I would ask you to allow me to point you to http://www.ripe.net/cgi-bin/webiprequest/webiprequest.cgi
when someone to whom i am begging asks "have you considered X," this is taken as close to "we expect you to use X if you can." but the issue i raised is not what is on the form, but what is communicated in presentations and training. what the audience took away from the afnog presentation was "nat is a desirable approach that we think you should use if possible."
(as a personal opinion, raising awareness of IPv6 is probably a good thing. Seeing people working with it and fixing the rough edges in the technology before widespread deployment would be a great thing to see).
<grin> randy
I seriously think that adding a second question "have you considered IPv6" (if only to raise awareness "IPv6 is here to stay") might be a good thing.
My reply would be templated: "I have but I have found that I am not permitted to apply for IPv6 space." Peter
Hi, On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 01:53:02PM +0100, Peter Galbavy wrote:
I seriously think that adding a second question "have you considered IPv6" (if only to raise awareness "IPv6 is here to stay") might be a good thing.
My reply would be templated:
"I have but I have found that I am not permitted to apply for IPv6 space."
Of course you are permitted to ask your ISP for IPv6 space. If your ISP does not have some, but you want some, time to tell their marketing folks. We're not talking about LIR->RIR requests (they have no "have you considered NAT" clause). Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 45114 (45077) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
My reply would be templated:
"I have but I have found that I am not permitted to apply for IPv6 space."
Of course you are permitted to ask your ISP for IPv6 space.
If your ISP does not have some, but you want some, time to tell their marketing folks.
We're not talking about LIR->RIR requests (they have no "have you considered NAT" clause).
I am my ISP. I have my AS, my IPv4 allocation and my upstream(s) - one at this exact moment. I still cannot get my IPv6 space. I am not going to restrict myself from moving / adding / removing upstreams based on the paperwork associated with IPv6 address space through each one. Peter
Hi, On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 09:38:36AM +0100, Peter Galbavy wrote:
I am my ISP. I have my AS, my IPv4 allocation and my upstream(s) - one at this exact moment. I still cannot get my IPv6 space.
Why? Have you read the current policy? If you're an ISP and are serious about connecting customers, getting an IPv6 allocation should be easy. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 45114 (45077) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 10:41:10AM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
Why? Have you read the current policy? If you're an ISP and are serious about connecting customers, getting an IPv6 allocation should be easy.
Oh yes, by the new policy. However, we have to wait for RIPE NCC and the other RIRs to actually implement this policy. That was the reply I got a few days ago, when I wrote RIPE NCC and asked. Peter B. Juul, Uni·C (PBJ255-RIPE)
Hi, On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 10:46:26AM +0200, Peter B . Juul wrote:
On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 10:41:10AM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
Why? Have you read the current policy? If you're an ISP and are serious about connecting customers, getting an IPv6 allocation should be easy. Oh yes, by the new policy.
Yes, of course. The old policy was not adaequate in any way, which is what (as far as I heard) everybody agreed upon.
However, we have to wait for RIPE NCC and the other RIRs to actually implement this policy. That was the reply I got a few days ago, when I wrote RIPE NCC and asked.
Did they mention a timeframe? The LIR WG made it pretty clear that this is supposed to happen "soon". Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 45114 (45077) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 11:54:38AM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
Did they mention a timeframe? The LIR WG made it pretty clear that this is supposed to happen "soon".
"Probably two weeks", meaning that it'll probably be at least a month before I actually have my prefix. But at least with the new policy I have a reasonable chance of getting those addresses, which is very much a plus-thing. Peter B. Juul, Uni·C (PBJ255-RIPE)
Hi Peter, On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 11:59:12AM +0200, Peter B . Juul wrote: Re: Re: neutrality and nat
On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 11:54:38AM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
Did they mention a timeframe? The LIR WG made it pretty clear that this is supposed to happen "soon".
"Probably two weeks", meaning that it'll probably be at least a month before I actually have my prefix. But at least with the new policy I have a reasonable chance of getting those addresses, which is very much a plus-thing.
We are co-ordinating with ARIN and APNIC on implementing the new Global IPv6 Policy. The three RIRs would like to have a single date from which the new policy is implemented. We expect to be able to publish a date of implementation for the policy next week. Kind regards, -- leo vegoda RIPE NCC, Registration Services Assistant Manager
Hi, On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 04:39:12PM +0200, leo vegoda wrote:
We are co-ordinating with ARIN and APNIC on implementing the new Global IPv6 Policy. The three RIRs would like to have a single date from which the new policy is implemented.
Why would that be a desireable goal? Sorry to be so direct - but all outcome I can see from this is "delay", and I do not see any grave danger of having different start dates for the new policy in different regions. There are other differences as well (like "what amount of paperwork do I have to sign beforehand", etc). Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 45114 (45077) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
I may well have missed an announcement, but the last time I looked the rules were very counter productive. Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net> To: "Peter Galbavy" <peter.galbavy@knowtion.net> Cc: "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net>; "Hans Petter Holen" <hph@online.no>; "Randy Bush" <randy@psg.com>; <lir-wg@ripe.net> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 9:41 AM Subject: Re: neutrality and nat
Hi,
On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 09:38:36AM +0100, Peter Galbavy wrote:
I am my ISP. I have my AS, my IPv4 allocation and my upstream(s) - one at this exact moment. I still cannot get my IPv6 space.
Why? Have you read the current policy? If you're an ISP and are serious about connecting customers, getting an IPv6 allocation should be easy.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 45114 (45077)
SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
Hi, On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 09:57:58AM +0100, Peter Galbavy wrote:
I may well have missed an announcement, but the last time I looked the rules were very counter productive.
The rules have changed as of the last RIPE meeting. A pointer to the new policy document ("global IPv6 interim policy") should be in the LIR-WG mailing list archives. It is not yet in force, but the action item on the NCC was "make *this* the official policy, and make it *quick*". gert
Peter
----- Original Message ----- From: "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net> To: "Peter Galbavy" <peter.galbavy@knowtion.net> Cc: "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net>; "Hans Petter Holen" <hph@online.no>; "Randy Bush" <randy@psg.com>; <lir-wg@ripe.net> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 9:41 AM Subject: Re: neutrality and nat
Hi,
On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 09:38:36AM +0100, Peter Galbavy wrote:
I am my ISP. I have my AS, my IPv4 allocation and my upstream(s) - one at this exact moment. I still cannot get my IPv6 space.
Why? Have you read the current policy? If you're an ISP and are serious about connecting customers, getting an IPv6 allocation should be easy.
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 45114 (45077)
SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 45114 (45077) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
Why ? If you buy transit from me you can have the IP space from me. (replace me with upstream to make the reply generic :-) -hph ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Galbavy" <peter.galbavy@knowtion.net> To: "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net>; "Hans Petter Holen" <hph@online.no> Cc: "Randy Bush" <randy@psg.com>; <lir-wg@ripe.net> Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 2:53 PM Subject: Re: neutrality and nat | > I seriously think that adding a second question "have you considered IPv6" | > (if only to raise awareness "IPv6 is here to stay") might be a good thing. | | My reply would be templated: | | "I have but I have found that I am not permitted to apply for IPv6 space." | | Peter | |
Why ? If you buy transit from me you can have the IP space from me.
(replace me with upstream to make the reply generic :-)
And if I am connected to two upstreams and do BGP ? Why do I want two address spaces. IPv6 needs to map back onto existing IPv4 architectures to make it feasible. Peter
I seriously think that adding a second question "have you considered IPv6" (if only to raise awareness "IPv6 is here to stay") might be a good thing.
while i might agree on philosophical grounds, i am trying to run v6 and it is not clear to me it is even 'here' let alone to stay. and certainly, there is no non-nat transition plan. and even a natted transition plan, in which hosts are not 'restricted' as in v4 nat, needs as many v4 addresses as a non-natted v4 network. v6 needs a lot of work. and i don't think we will have social fun agreeing on the caveats we would be obliged to put into a "you may want to consider" clause. randy
participants (14)
-
Alan Sawyer -
Gert Doering -
Hans Petter Holen -
Joao Luis Silva Damas -
leo vegoda -
Mark Pace Balzan -
Nigel Titley -
Patrick Evans -
Peter B . Juul -
Peter Galbavy -
Philip Smith -
Poul-Henning Kamp -
Randy Bush -
Stuart Prevost