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

In IPv4 - NAT could help them. In IPv6 - thoroughly arranged network can
do this.
There is a goal in the RIPE NCC policy - not to waste the address space.
If we want to live in terms of "probability" and "global charity" we
could easily drop this matter at all!

Vladislav Potapov
Ru.iiat

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dmitry Kiselev [mailto:dmitry at volia.net]
> Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 2:33 PM
> To: Potapov Vladislav
> Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [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