[address-policy-wg] RE: [policy-announce] 2009-06 New Policy Proposal (Removing Routing Requirements from the IPv6 Address Allocation Policy)

Hello!

On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 02:15:08PM +0400, poty at iiat.ru wrote:

> > > If a company wants to use interconnection with other companies -
> > > it is their PRIVATE deal. And they should use their PRIVATE means
> for
> > > achieving that!
> > 
> > The TCP/IP Technology (including the resources to uniquely identify
> the
> > individual components) are - and indeed should continue to be -
> > accessible
> > to the full community. Whether using this stuff on the "Internet" or
> > for
> > some other purpose is not a discriminating factor here.
> I fully agree with that! But companies, not involved in the
> communication with other parties, called the Internet, should create
> their own uniqueness for themselves. Why it should be achieved by help
> of irrelevant (read - the Internet) party?


OK, but what they should do if one of them decide to come to Internet?
Renumber a whole mesh to avoid duplicates?

If I remember correctly, few years ago FastWeb went through silimar situation
with their modem's address space. Why we should push some parties to this?

-- 
Dmitry Kiselev