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]/
[address-policy-wg] Re: Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Daniel Roesen
dr at cluenet.de
Fri Nov 18 17:58:07 CET 2005
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 07:25:49AM -0800, Randy Bush wrote: > >> If you are really too small, that is you have at most 10 sites, then you > >> simply are too small. > > Who are you to decide who is too small to be allowed independence? > > someone with routers which have to carry all those prefixes You mean the very small tier 1 club? All others can default and don't _have_ to carry all those prefixes. Or do you mean the ISP community at large which tries to fulfil customer requirements and make money with that? The customer requirement is full technical and economical independence from their suppliers. And the ISPs (minus the Tier 1s) can default to their upstreams, they don't need to carry full tables - unless their customers do ask for that. It's all about fulfilling customer requirements. What's _your_ solution to this problem _now_ in IPv6? Regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]