|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]
This is flawed in a number of points: 1. 32 bit ASNs are coming at least as quickly as IPv6. (/me ducks under table now as both camps probably take offense) 2. There are currently 4 and will soon be 5 RIRs. 3. There are plenty of large organizations that are multihomed that don't have 200 locations. Owen --On Thursday, November 18, 2004 6:02 PM +0100 Jeroen Massar <[email protected]> wrote: On Thu, 2004-11-18 at 16:50 +0000, Paul Vixie wrote:> For *THAT* matter, I've heard a lot of people over on the main IETF > list in the last week or so stating that SMTP is only 1-2% of many > places' total bandwidth usage. So why don't we all just cut *THAT* > off because there's no business case to support *THAT* either? :) let's be clear about the remaining roadblocks. just because some of you don't like tony li or don't like what he said, doesn't make what he said less true.We all *hate* Mr.Li (is there any reason to? :)<SNIP> but for enterprises large or medium who build their own networks and buy service from more than one provider and/or who peer directly, they'll either have to have their own /32 or they'll use NAT.They should use NAP, NAT is the IPv4 thing, NAP is for IPv6 ;) Larger enterprises probably consist of 200 'sites' already, eg separate offices, locations etc. Thus they can, after becoming a LIR and getting an ASN, which most of the time they already have, easily get a /32. Actually, I would even go so far that the really large corps should be able to get a /32 from every RIR when they globally have offices, this could allow them to keep the traffic at least on the same continent, not having to send it to another place of the world themselves. That would really put the constraint on ASN's of course and thus: 65k*3 = maximum of ~180k prefixes when every ASN owner did this (and they won't in most if not all cases). [--ot--] On Thu, 2004-11-18 at 16:40 +0000, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:In article <[email protected]>, Jeroen Massar <[email protected]> wrote: > The business case of about 80% of the ISP's is Pr0n & W4R3z (or what > spelling is 'in' this year?) > > But.... it is not illegal to make adverts for say "Downloading the > newest movies over a cool 8mbit DSL line". But downloading it itself is > of course. Might be analogous to providing a busservice to the crack > dealers mansion. [OT] That depends on the jurisdiction. In many parts of the world, downloading is NOT illegal. But making copyrighted files available for download is illegal (without the proper autorization, ofcourse).Thus... say a newsserver full of illegal stuff is quite illegal? Or that other nice example 'proxy servers', they store the data and then relay it. A router could be said to 'store' the data also (in registers for like a zillionth microsecond ;) and Greets, Jeroen -- If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me. Attachment:
pgp00047.pgp
|