On 2014-10-16 18:53, Enno Rey wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 06:56:32PM +0200, Jeroen Massar wrote: >>> to put it equally bluntly, those folks wonder: "hey, we pay a >>> hell lot of money to our uplink providers and they fail to >>> deliver what we contracted, that is transporting our traffic". >>> see the examples in >>> https://www.ernw.de/download/RIPE69_Rey_Langner_Slash48_Considered_Harmful_v082_DRAFT.pdf. >> >> >>> >>> There is a reason why there are PA and PI blocks... or you know, >>> pay for transiting the aggregate... > > well ... yes. not sure to what extent $RIRs act accordingly (have > been involved in requesting resources from all five of them in the > past and can tell you 1st hand that there's quite some encouraging > $LARGE_ENTERPRISES to bec ome LIRs, in one way or the other).
As you are the consultant, your job to get them there right? Nothing the IETF can do about that part. > there > must be a reason, why - as far as I can tell - _pretty much all_ > large German companies have joined the elitist LIR club in the last > two years, preparing their IPv6 depl oyment. Because they all wanted a /32 PA for near zero paperwork. > RIRs are happily playing > that game which is exactly why debate & consensus are needed (and > probably Iljitsch brought this to BCOP). > > that said, $FOLK would pay for it. The numbers in your slides show that those companies have more than enough "resources" to be able to set up a proper network or let some transit backhaul the traffic. No need to de-aggregate and burden the rest of the world with that though. I would blame the consultant for hinting at the wrong solution for their enterprise... Greets, Jeroen _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
