North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Multi-6 [WAS: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google]

  • From: Patrick W. Gilmore
  • Date: Sat Sep 10 02:20:20 2005 
[Perhaps this thread should migrate to Multi6?]

On Sep 9, 2005, at 11:55 PM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:


On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Daniel Golding wrote:



Getting back on-topic - how can this be? I thought only service
providers

(with downstream customers) could get PI v6 space. Isn't this what
policy

proposal 2005-1 is about? Can someone (from ARIN?) explain the
current

policy?



what if they didn't ask for a prefix but instead just hammered their

providers for /48's? What's the difference to them anyway?
(provided we

are just talking about them lighting up www.google.com in v6 of
course)



If they wanted to start offering more 'services' (ip services
perhaps?)

then they could say they were a 'provider' (All they need is a plan to

support 200 customers to get a /32) and start the magic of /32-ness...



Suppose they not only have no plan but couldn't really put together a
plan to support 200 customers? Does this mean Google, or any other
content provider, is "unworthy" of globally routeable space?



IPv6 is a nice idea, and as soon as people realize that ISPs are not
the only organizations who have a need to multi-home - and I mean
really multi-home, not stupid work-arounds - then it might actually
start to happen.



--

TTFN,

patrick