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

Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne)

  • From: Niels Bakker
  • Date: Thu Mar 02 20:18:07 2006 
* [email protected] ([email protected]) [Thu 02 Mar 2006, 17:03 CET]:

If your current business model means that your business
cannot continue in an IPv6 world, then a competent
business manager will change that model. If the IPv6
I assume that you mean that the IPv6 model will be changed, no? Because I hope that it has become clear from this thread that the adoption of IPv6 by a significant amount of players currently reachable over IPv4 is far from certain, and unless IPv6 offers at least feature compatibility it may not even happen.


[..]
If you feel you should qualify as an LIR, then apply
for your /32. If you get rejected, asked for detailed
reasons why. If the reasons are due to misunderstanding
or a lack of information, then remedy the situation and
reapply. If the reasons have to do with your structure or
your plans, then change them and reapply. If you can't do
that then I would question whether you have a serious
intention to be an IPv6 service provider.
Why should a certain business model be forced upon you? To multihome right now you need to cough up some money for equipment and some clue for configuration. Why would IPv6 require you to change your business model to achieve the same?


[unattributed wrote:]
One customer on one dedicated server gets a /128.
That is, of course, insane. IPv6 addresses are far from rare. Why do you a priori rule out applications like https and virtualisation?


-- Niels.