This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[ipv6-wg] Re: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Tim Chown
tjc at ecs.soton.ac.uk
Tue Dec 6 11:51:56 CET 2005
On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 09:31:53AM +0100, Gert Doering wrote: > > [..] > > Also the current IPv6 policy that only ISPs can get independently routeable > > address space is a fine line into anti-competitive behaviour which may be > > illegal according to EU anti-trust law. > > As nobody is preventing you from becoming an ISP, this line of argument > is completly cr**. That's true. It didn't take much effort, and 'only' maybe 1,500 Euros p.a. for our site to in effect become an LIR. I guess for some people the fee is an issue, but the old argument is if PI is that important to you as a corporate organisation, that money is small change. So who exactly are these people calling for their IPv4 equivalent PI space? Are they all corporate enterprise networks? If not, who represents the other major consumers? And how many PI prefixes are in use today for IPv4? 10,000? 30,000? More? -- Tim/::1
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]