Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 08:05:39 -0800
From: "Michel Py" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| This is wrong. If the university is in the ISP business, they should
| get a /35 or a /29.
They're not.
| You keep trying to break RFC 2373 to solve problems that have been
| caused by people that have not done things right to begin with.
It is this notion that there is a "right" that I am opposed to.
There are lots of acceptable ways to operate, and all of them
should be permitted. Ans it wasn't I who "broke" 2373, it is broken
as it is written.
| It is not ok to try to run an ISP with a /48. Period.
Buit there (aside from marketing speak) is no distinction between
something that is an ISP and something that is not. That's the
point I am trying to make. Anyone and everyone can connect others.
Or they should be able to. We shouldn't be even considering setting
up an environment where connections are only permitetd to be made to
the priveleged few who have /35's - or the answer will have to be that
everyone will simply go request a /35 instead of a /48.
Stop trying to label people/organisations into categories. Address
space blocks outght to be allocated based upon the number of sub-addresses
that need to be allocated, not upon some label. If I have just
a couple to allocate, and I am prepared to live with the consequences,
then subnetting a /64 should work just fine.
kre
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
