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/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
AW: [address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it less destructive
- Previous message (by thread): AW: [address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it less destructive
- Next message (by thread): [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it less destructive
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Tim Chown
tjc at ecs.soton.ac.uk
Tue Apr 25 12:16:16 CEST 2006
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 08:37:39AM +0200, Nils Ketelsen wrote: > > Thats at least the perspective I got from customers we have set up > interconnections with. Thats mainly large enterprise market, small customers > usually do not get connectivity to our network (as they do not need it). Do we have stats on what percentage of people with PI allocations for IPv4 have it to avoid renumbering (i.e. to change provider much more easily), and how many in addition use it for multihoming? I know of small enterprises that are not interested in multihoming so much (they have good reliability from their ISPs) but who want to be able to react to better connectivity deals (e.g. in a case I saw recently move from 15K pa. to 8K pa. for a service, without losing that advantage with renumbering costs). Just curious. -- Tim/::1
- Previous message (by thread): AW: [address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it less destructive
- Next message (by thread): [ppml] [address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it less destructive
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]