Hi Vladimir,
in that manner they would not be independent from us as organization.
If anything happens to us they would lose their subnet which has been
allocated by us.
I forgot one tought in my first mail.
To be particular about the policy in my opinion guest networks provided
by PI assigment holders e.g. companies aren't legitimate use either.
Because addresses are leased to users/devices which don't belong the
company holding the PI assignment.
That addresses could be treated as assignments to third parties as well.
Regards
Thomas
Am 19.06.2015 14:24, schrieb Vladimir Andreev:
One fix:
Not "inetnum" and "route" but "inet6num" and "route6".
19.06.2015, 15:23, "Vladimir Andreev" <[email protected]>:
Another way:
1) Create "inetnum" with type ALLOCATED-BY-LIR inside of "inetnum" allocated by
RIPE NCC to LIR;
2) Create "route" object with the same IP prefix as in step 1 and desired AS;
3) Announce your prefix;
Also you may need to create at least one ASSIGNED "inetnum" inside ALLOCATED-BY-LIR
"inetnum".
19.06.2015, 15:15, "Christopher Kunz" <[email protected]>:
Am 19.06.15 um 14:06 schrieb Vladimir Andreev:
Hello!
Why wouldn't they become a LIR?
Small Hotspot providers and especially Freifunk communities typically
can not afford a LIR Membership to be independent. In my opinion the
current policy makes it hard to adopt IPv6 in such cases.
As the OP wrote: It's too expensive for a non-profit communal
organisation (typically made up of 3-10 enthusiastic community members
without a real budget) to become a LIR just for the purpose of
connecting one (!) city's Wifi to the world.
--ck
--
With best regards, Vladimir Andreev
General director, QuickSoft LLC
Tel: +7 903 1750503
--
With best regards, Vladimir Andreev
General director, QuickSoft LLC
Tel: +7 903 1750503
