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] IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy (2006-02)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy (2006-02)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy (2006-02)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Dennis Lundström
dennis at gippnet.com
Wed Oct 25 11:15:19 CEST 2006
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Lars. I guess It depends on the definition of an "end-site" The whole idea with IPv6 is to push the addresses to the end users. We would without a doubt see more "connected" household appliances in the future. And for our part. 200 /48 is not totally unrealistic. I would say It's way to early to say. It depends very much on how fast the market will adapt IPv6, and how fast new appliances are available. Personally I would say that even a qualified guess on an estimate is really, really hard here, and we don't want to lie to our friends at RIPE-NCC, don't we :-) Cheers! - --Dennis Lundström GippNET AB (AS34537) Lars Lystrup Christensen wrote: > I believe the new proposal is much fairer to smaller ISPs, who > currently are unable to justify assignments for IPv6. Currently we > would not be able to assign 200 /48 in two years and therefore > unable to receive IPv6 address space. However, until we are able to > provide IPv6 connectivity, our customers won't request such IP > addresses from us. And since our customers won't request them, we > can't justify requesting from RIPE, who won't assign since we can't > assign at lease 200 /48 in two years.... > > As shown this ends up in a deadlock situation and therefore IPv6 > will only be available to larger ISPs. > > I know IPv6 is still quite a new "feature" and therefore still not > widely used, but unless ISPs get access to IPv6 address space, it > won't be more widely used. > > I'm definitely in favour of the new proposal. > > ______________________________________ > > Med venlig hilsen / Kind regards > > Lars Lystrup Christensen Network Engineer LLC11-RIPE > > >> -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net >> [mailto:address-policy-wg- admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Stefan >> Camilleri Sent: 24. oktober 2006 12:14 To: >> jordi.palet at consulintel.es; address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: >> RE: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment >> Policy (2006-02) >> >> Hi, >> >> I think that the modifications as proposed, though still not >> *there* are a big improvement on existing text particularly with >> the dropping of the requirement for 200 /48 assignments. >> >> I fully support the new Proposal >> >> Regards. >> >> Stephen SC4079-RIPE >> >>> -----Original Message----- From: >>> address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net >>> [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of JORDI >>> PALET MARTINEZ Sent: L-Erbgħa, 27 ta' Settembru 2006 12:02 To: >>> address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 >>> Address Allocation and Assignment Policy (2006-02) >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Same for this one ... Looking for further inputs to this policy >>> proposal. >>> >>> As the discussion period for this proposal >>> (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-02.html) is >>> almost over, I will like to ask for the latest inputs in order >>> to further decide how to proceed. >>> >>> Filiz arranged some stats about the discussion (thanks a lot >>> for that !) last July, and afterwards, even if the discussion >>> period has been extended, I don't recall having seen new >>> comments. >>> >>> The stats don't include my own postings: >>> >>>>>> - there were 39 posts from 14 different individuals about >>>>>> it. >>>>>> >>>>>> - 8 people supported it. >>>>>> >>>>>> - 1 person *seemed* to be in favour of keeping the >>>>>> current policy. >>>>>> >>>>>> - 5 people made comments which I could not identify a >>> clear support >>>>>> or objection. >>> So someone else will like to say anything new or clarify their >>> view in favor or opposition to the proposal ? >>> >>> Regards, Jordi >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: >>> http://www.ipv6tf.org >>> >>> Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org >>> >>> This electronic message contains information which may be >>> privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be >>> for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not >>> the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, >>> distribution or use of the contents of this information, >>> including attached files, is prohibited. >>> >>> >>> >>> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFPysnsqJZaeZjsn8RAljpAKC8mRyq+x+piuXli7BNzF40uYCrVwCfT4LI uFK7kA3CozqLjc3nBmypEoE= =gmlg -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy (2006-02)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy (2006-02)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]