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: [address-policy-wg] Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] a consensus, about what?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com
Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com
Wed Dec 7 12:53:08 CET 2005
> ... and free transit into each geographical region would be mandatory > ??? > > Aggregation across multiple administrative domains isn't just a minor > technical change. It would eliminate the transit-provider business > model. Disruptive technologies are facts of life and nobody has a > god-given right to existence, but don't expect long-haul carriers to > give up their business without a fight. Transit provider business models are not the same everywhere. Nobody will be forced to give anyone free transit. Yes, it is true that geotop aggregation leads to more use of cold-potato routing, but that is a problem for the providers to deal with. If they want to use geotop aggregation and if it results in a shift of traffic patterns and if that requires negotiating new business models or transit contracts then there are no technical barriers to doing this. RIRs can only make addressing policy, not mandate business models. As long as geotop addressing is implemented in addition to the classical IPv6 addressing model, nobody will be forced to do anything that they don't want to. However, new entrants into the market will be able to do things that are impossible today. This will lead to change. The fact that a new addressing policy does not create miracles, only possibilities, is not sufficient reason to oppose such a policy. In fact, it is likely that existing providers will dip their toes in the water and make some limited use of geotop addressing to enable them to offer new metro-multihoming services to small organizations that only need multihoming within a single city. This is fairly straightfoward to do. In addition to geotop addressing, it only requires two providers to negotiate a local peering agreement and that is probably already in place for classic IPv4 peering. In any case, none of these problems are insurmountable and none of them dilute the case for geotop addressing as AN ADDITIONAL OPTIONAL TYPE OF IPV6 ADDRESSING. --Michael Dillon
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] a consensus, about what?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]