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 PI resource question - Not for ISP but hosting
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI resource question - Not for ISP but hosting
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] New RIPE NCC Procedural Document Available
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Adrian Czapek
adriano at rybnet.pl
Mon Mar 7 15:27:34 CET 2011
> Having said this, the current requirement (multi-homing) is a way to > avoid pet IT projects. > > I'm currently in the process of writing a policy change document on > the policy RIPE-512 that would remove the multi-homing requirement > and suggests an increase of the PI IPv6 cost to 250 euro per yearly > maintenance fee for the LIR. The increased cost for the LIR for a PI > IPv6 prefix, should have a similar effect. > It's fine, but it will not fix the problem of hosting companies that do not want to become LIR (mainly for financial reasons) just to get their own IPv6 address space. We have to realize that the transition to IPv6 depends on content availability. As long as hosting companies will have impeded access to something as basic as IP addresses, we can forget about transition at all. Regards -- Adrian
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI resource question - Not for ISP but hosting
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] New RIPE NCC Procedural Document Available
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]