--On Wednesday, December 1, 2004 8:36 +0200 Pekka Savola
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004, Owen DeLong wrote:
if the prices were one or two orders of magnitude higher, that might be
true. That's way too cheap as it is. 1$ upfront, 5000$/yr for
renewal might scare away who _re
this.
Chris
-Original Message-
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 12:49 PM
To: Chris Burton; Pekka Savola
Cc: Jeroen Massar; Cliff Albert; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: 16 vs 32 bit ASNs [Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large
multi-site enterprises a
major issue;
but this is just my opinion, YMMV.
Chris
-Original Message-
From: Pekka Savola [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 9:44 PM
To: Chris Burton
Cc: Owen DeLong; Jeroen Massar; Cliff Albert; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: 16 vs 32 bit ASNs [Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Wa
--On Tuesday, November 30, 2004 19:52 +0200 Pekka Savola
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004, Owen DeLong wrote:
--On Tuesday, November 30, 2004 7:44 AM +0200 Pekka Savola
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Chris Burton wrote:
It is highly doubtful that the polici
29, 2004 9:44 PM
To: Chris Burton
Cc: Owen DeLong; Jeroen Massar; Cliff Albert; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: 16 vs 32 bit ASNs [Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large
multi-site enterprises and PI]
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Chris Burton wrote:
> It is highly doubtful that the policies in place wil
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004, Owen DeLong wrote:
--On Tuesday, November 30, 2004 7:44 AM +0200 Pekka Savola
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Chris Burton wrote:
It is highly doubtful that the policies in place will become
more relaxed with the introduction of 32-bit ASNs, the more li
Multihoming can be such a reason. Get DSL and cable to your home,
request an AS number, request PI space, run BGP to multihome, etc.
In which case, it's legitimate.
OTOH, I have a SOHO with a legitimate ASN and protable IPv4 space. Who
are you to tell me that it isn't legitimate for me to use it
--On Tuesday, November 30, 2004 7:44 AM +0200 Pekka Savola
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Chris Burton wrote:
It is highly doubtful that the policies in place will become
more relaxed with the introduction of 32-bit ASNs, the more likely
scenario is that they will stay t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is where a sensible geographical addressing hierarchy
comes in. Start by allocating a very big chunk of the v6
address space to geographical addresses. This chunk should
be approximately the same size as the chunk that we expect
to use with the current allocation syste
> Of course, every ASN would not be active. But if we'd have 32 bit
> ASNs, there would be "no need" (or so folks would argue) to be strict
> in the policies -- everyone and their uncle could have one. Folks
> could even get ones for their homes, theis SOHO deployments, or their
> 3-person,
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Owen DeLong wrote:
Of course, every ASN would not be active. But if we'd have 32 bit ASNs,
there would be "no need" (or so folks would argue) to be strict in the
policies -- everyone and their uncle could have one. Folks could even
get ones for their homes, theis SOHO deploym
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Chris Burton wrote:
It is highly doubtful that the policies in place will become
more relaxed with the introduction of 32-bit ASNs, the more likely
scenario is that they will stay the same or get far stricter as with
assignments of IPv4 or IPv6 addresses.
I find this ha
, November 29, 2004 11:41 AM
To: Owen DeLong
Cc: Jeroen Massar; Cliff Albert; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 16 vs 32 bit ASNs [Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large
multi-site enterprises and PI]
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Also, with 32bit ASN's, also expect upto 2^32 rou
On 27-nov-04, at 22:45, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the short version of my rebuttal is: "those are not your bits to
waste."
They are if my ISP assigns them to me. :-)
er... not really. they are the ISPs.
Well, the ISP doesn't "own" them either. But they're assigned to me,
which gives me the rig
Of course, every ASN would not be active. But if we'd have 32 bit ASNs,
there would be "no need" (or so folks would argue) to be strict in the
policies -- everyone and their uncle could have one. Folks could even
get ones for their homes, theis SOHO deployments, or their 3-person,
on-the-side con
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Owen DeLong wrote:
Also, with 32bit ASN's, also expect upto 2^32 routes in your routing
table when each and every ASN would at least send 1 route and of course
there will be ASN's sending multiple routes.
Only if EVERY ASN were allocated and active. You and I both know this
do
On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 09:58 -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> --On Monday, November 29, 2004 5:41 PM +0100 Jeroen Massar
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 08:35 -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >> > Also, with 32bit ASN's, also expect upto 2^32 routes in your routing
> >> > table w
--On Monday, November 29, 2004 5:41 PM +0100 Jeroen Massar
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 08:35 -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Also, with 32bit ASN's, also expect upto 2^32 routes in your routing
> table when each and every ASN would at least send 1 route and of course
> there wil
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Pekka Savola wrote:
>
> ASN exhaustion is IMHO just a symptom of the real problem. Enlarging
> the ASN space does not cure the disease, just makes it worse.
>
Uhm... because you DON'T want customers to multihome and do so with
multiple providers for their own safety?
On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 08:35 -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > Also, with 32bit ASN's, also expect upto 2^32 routes in your routing
> > table when each and every ASN would at least send 1 route and of course
> > there will be ASN's sending multiple routes.
> >
> Only if EVERY ASN were allocated and acti
Also, with 32bit ASN's, also expect upto 2^32 routes in your routing
table when each and every ASN would at least send 1 route and of course
there will be ASN's sending multiple routes.
Only if EVERY ASN were allocated and active. You and I both know this
doesn't begin to approach reality. Slight
On Sat, Nov 27, 2004 at 06:25:52PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> While IPv6 is still IP, it's not just IPv4 with bigger addresses. We
> have 128 bits, so we should make good use of them. One way to do this
> is to make all subnets and 99% of end-user assignements the same size.
> Yes, t
On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 12:11 +0100, Cliff Albert wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 08:45:17AM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:
>
> > >Well, how many AS numbers would you like to give out? 3 in 20 years?
> > >100k a year? A million in a month? 32 bits will then give you 2863
> > >millennia, 429 centu
On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 08:45:17AM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:
> >Well, how many AS numbers would you like to give out? 3 in 20 years?
> >100k a year? A million in a month? 32 bits will then give you 2863
> >millennia, 429 centuries or 357 years, respectively.
>
> ASN exhaustion is IMHO jus
On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 11:13:55AM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> We really don't want to arrive at a situation
> where it becomes increasingly difficult to obtain an AS number for
> those who legitimately need one.
What will be interesting is the definition of "legitimate" in this
contex
On 29-nov-04, at 7:45, Pekka Savola wrote:
I think it's not. The problem will not go away then, it will just
take
longer before it appears again. The policies have to get stricter,
there
is no point in 'fixing' your problems by not fixing the issue that
created them in the first place.
Well, how
On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 01:59 -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > 2002/48, eg, 192.0.2.42 becomes 2002:c000:22a::/48, 6to4,
> > quite in use and works fine when the 6to4 relays are close-by for both
> > ends.
> >
> OK... Seems a bit messier, and more wasteful of address space, but, if we
> want to blow
:::, eg :::192.0.2.42, but that is mostly (or
entirely?) deprecated. The IPv4 mapped addresses give a range of nice
security problems where people forget to close down their IPv6 firewall
for this and thus allow IPv4 addresses into the IPv6 world and there
where some other reasons.
Huh? A
On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 01:11 -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
> How is this any more of a security hole than address-based trust in the
> first place. As near as I can tell, the 6-to-4 mapping is simply a
> legitimate form of address spoofing more than what I would call dynamic
> tunnels. As I understa
Reclaiming AS numbers is a waste of time. We need to move beyond 16
bits at some point anyway.
I think it's not. The problem will not go away then, it will just take
longer before it appears again. The policies have to get stricter, there
is no point in 'fixing' your problems by not fixing the issu
* Owen DeLong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-11-28 19:51]:
> there are a lot of organizations now having PI without having an ASN
> and beeing multihomed. a transition to v6 with this policy would make
> things much worse for them, so why should they?
They shouldn't unless they need features that are av
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 28-nov-04, at 21:45, Cliff Albert wrote:
Reclaiming AS numbers is a waste of time. We need to move beyond 16
bits at some point anyway.
I think it's not. The problem will not go away then, it will just take
longer before it appears again. The pol
On Sun, Nov 28, 2004 at 11:40:59PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> >I think it's not. The problem will not go away then, it will just take
> >longer before it appears again. The policies have to get stricter,
> >there
> >is no point in 'fixing' your problems by not fixing the issue that
> >
On 28-nov-04, at 21:45, Cliff Albert wrote:
Reclaiming AS numbers is a waste of time. We need to move beyond 16
bits at some point anyway.
I think it's not. The problem will not go away then, it will just take
longer before it appears again. The policies have to get stricter,
there
is no point in
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004, Henning Brauer wrote:
>
> * Cliff Albert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-11-28 13:13]:
> > Therefore I also agree with daniel that there is not really a problem
> > with the 1 ASN == 1 IPv6 Prefix.
>
> unless I miss something in that proposal that means that we'll see a
> dramatic
On Sun, Nov 28, 2004 at 09:27:40PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> >This is good, but it should also happen for ASN's that are already
> >active. An check for active use of the ASN and conforming to the
> >current
> >rules every 6 months should be a nice thing.
>
> Good luck trying to get
* Owen DeLong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-11-28 19:51]:
> >there are a lot of organizations now having PI without having an ASN
> >and beeing multihomed. a transition to v6 with this policy would make
> >things much worse for them, so why should they?
> They shouldn't unless they need features that
On 28-nov-04, at 20:56, Cliff Albert wrote:
I am looking from a RIPE point of view. Lately I see ISPs popping
out of
the ground requesting ASNs and having actually only 1 upstream (there
are 2 upstreams in the routing database, but in the real world there
is
only 1 upstream).
RIPE wants to see (e
On Sun, Nov 28, 2004 at 08:48:43PM +0100, Daniel Roesen wrote:
> > I am looking from a RIPE point of view. Lately I see ISPs popping out of
> > the ground requesting ASNs and having actually only 1 upstream (there
> > are 2 upstreams in the routing database, but in the real world there is
> > onl
On Sun, Nov 28, 2004 at 08:14:12PM +0100, Cliff Albert wrote:
> I am looking from a RIPE point of view. Lately I see ISPs popping out of
> the ground requesting ASNs and having actually only 1 upstream (there
> are 2 upstreams in the routing database, but in the real world there is
> only 1 upstre
Then I think that needs to be addressed at the RIPE level. ARIN certainly
made me prove that I had a unique routing policy and multiple peering
connections. They wanted letters from the ISPs involved stating that yes,
I had a peering (or transit) relationship with them.
Owen
--On Sunday, November
On Sun, Nov 28, 2004 at 10:56:31AM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >As I also stated in my last post (which you snipped out, and is pretty
> >relevant) is that the handing out of ASN's should be harder. Currently
> >ASN's are given to every silly dude that says 'i want multihoming'.
> >
> This simply
Hummzz, I guess that was the discussion PI vs PA that went on here ? The
issue was that not only ASN delegation should be more policed but that
also PI delegation should be more policed. Atleast that's my point of
view.
I think that in the current v4 policies, ASN assignment is sufficiently
policed
there are a lot of organizations now having PI without having an ASN
and beeing multihomed. a transition to v6 with this policy would make
things much worse for them, so why should they?
They shouldn't unless they need features that are available in v6 that
are not available in v4. Where's the har
--On Sunday, November 28, 2004 1:21 PM +0100 Henning Brauer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Cliff Albert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-11-28 13:13]:
Therefore I also agree with daniel that there is not really a problem
with the 1 ASN == 1 IPv6 Prefix.
unless I miss something in that proposal that means
My preference lies in making the policies a lot stricter, and actively
verifying current delegations. I see a lot of ASN's requested just for
fun with no real motive behind it.
I think this is already the case, at least with ARIN... I have definitely
had to thoroughly justify each and every ASN I h
And v6 without PI for will not get widespread adoption.
Further, ULA will become de facto PI without aggregation. Hence my
believe
that ULA is a bad idea, and, my recommendation that we face the
reality that PI is an important thing (unless we want to replicate the
v4 NAT mess). As such, I'd much
* Cliff Albert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-11-28 14:22]:
> As I also stated in my last post (which you snipped out, and is pretty
> relevant) is that the handing out of ASN's should be harder. Currently
> ASN's are given to every silly dude that says 'i want multihoming'.
I snipped that because I
On Sun, Nov 28, 2004 at 02:13:17PM +0100, Henning Brauer wrote:
> there are a lot of organizations now having PI without having an ASN
> and beeing multihomed. a transition to v6 with this policy would make
> things much worse for them, so why should they?
Agreed, but currently we are at "no PI
On Sun, Nov 28, 2004 at 01:21:05PM +0100, Henning Brauer wrote:
> * Cliff Albert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-11-28 13:13]:
> > Therefore I also agree with daniel that there is not really a problem
> > with the 1 ASN == 1 IPv6 Prefix.
>
> unless I miss something in that proposal that means that we'
* Daniel Roesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-11-28 14:05]:
>
> On Sun, Nov 28, 2004 at 01:21:05PM +0100, Henning Brauer wrote:
> > * Cliff Albert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-11-28 13:13]:
> > > Therefore I also agree with daniel that there is not really a problem
> > > with the 1 ASN == 1 IPv6 Prefix.
On Sun, Nov 28, 2004 at 01:21:05PM +0100, Henning Brauer wrote:
> * Cliff Albert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-11-28 13:13]:
> > Therefore I also agree with daniel that there is not really a problem
> > with the 1 ASN == 1 IPv6 Prefix.
>
> unless I miss something in that proposal that means that we'l
* Cliff Albert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-11-28 13:13]:
> Therefore I also agree with daniel that there is not really a problem
> with the 1 ASN == 1 IPv6 Prefix.
unless I miss something in that proposal that means that we'll see a
dramatic increase in ASNs - I mean, it is not like only organizat
On Sun, Nov 28, 2004 at 09:07:47AM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:
> >And even if all active ASses would immediately adopt IPv6, we would
> >land at about 18k IPv6 routes. "big deal".
> >
> >And I don't see multihoming adoption in IPv6 being anywhere quicker
> >than in IPv4, so: where is the problem,
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 18:25:52 +0100
Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All I hear is how this company or that enterprise "should qualify" for
> PI space. What I don't hear is what's going to happen when the routing
> tables grow too large, or how to prevent this. I think just abou
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004, Daniel Roesen wrote:
And even if all active ASses would immediately adopt IPv6, we would
land at about 18k IPv6 routes. "big deal".
And I don't see multihoming adoption in IPv6 being anywhere quicker
than in IPv4, so: where is the problem, please? We'll have about 1
route per A
At 12:25 PM 11/27/2004, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 27-nov-04, at 17:43, Paul Vixie wrote:
those of us who prefer static assignment + dhcp6 over EUI64 find a /64 to
be an obscene waste of address space on a per-lan (or per-vlan) basis, but
sadly there are already some cool wireless gadgets whose
On Sat, Nov 27, 2004 at 10:04:08PM -0500, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> I find it interesting that no operators are screaming that there will be
> too many routes, but that all the IPv6 researchers are bringing forth
> this view.
ACK. All the "oh our IPv4 DFZ table explodes today" is similarily
unfounded
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leo Bicknell) writes:
> I find it interesting that no operators are screaming that there will
> be too many routes, but that all the IPv6 researchers are bringing
> forth this view.
indeed.
> 8 years too late guys. We've figured out table management.
if by "table management
In a message written on Sat, Nov 27, 2004 at 06:25:52PM +0100, Iljitsch van
Beijnum wrote:
> All I hear is how this company or that enterprise "should qualify" for
> PI space. What I don't hear is what's going to happen when the routing
> tables grow too large, or how to prevent this. I think ju
> >the short version of my rebuttal is: "those are not your bits to
> >waste."
>
> They are if my ISP assigns them to me. :-)
er... not really. they are the ISPs.
> >second, let me add, "and it's not your routing table, either."
> I have no idea what this means.
if you have
> the short version of my rebuttal is: "those are not your bits to waste."
he didn't like it when i said it, he wou't like when
you say it either.. :)
> second, let me add, "and it's not your routing table, either."
well, actually, it is. as long as its in -HIS- router
On 27-nov-04, at 19:17, Paul Vixie wrote:
i was waiting and watching and looking and hoping for this. now i
have it.
Glad that I could oblige...
... We have 128 bits, so we should make good use of them. One way to
do this is to make all subnets and 99% of end-user assignements the
same size. Ye
At 11:54 PM 11/26/04 -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
IMHO, the rules that qualify someone for an AS number should qualify them
for a prefix. It need not be a truly long prefix, but larger than a /48.
I agree with the first part, but, a /48 is 65,536 64 bit subnets. Do you
really think most organizations
i was waiting and watching and looking and hoping for this. now i have it.
> From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ... We have 128 bits, so we should make good use of them. One way to
> do this is to make all subnets and 99% of end-user assignements the
> same size. Yes, this waste
On 27-nov-04, at 18:59, Owen DeLong wrote:
All I hear is how this company or that enterprise "should qualify"
for PI
space. What I don't hear is what's going to happen when the routing
tables grow too large, or how to prevent this. I think just about
anyone
"should qualify", but ONLY if there is
All I hear is how this company or that enterprise "should qualify" for PI
space. What I don't hear is what's going to happen when the routing
tables grow too large, or how to prevent this. I think just about anyone
"should qualify", but ONLY if there is some form of aggregation possible.
PI in IPv6
On 27-nov-04, at 17:43, Paul Vixie wrote:
those of us who prefer static assignment + dhcp6 over EUI64 find a /64
to
be an obscene waste of address space on a per-lan (or per-vlan) basis,
but
sadly there are already some cool wireless gadgets whose idea of ipv6
does
not include either static or d
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Fred Baker) writes:
> My reasoning: well, I work for an outfit that has an AS number, meaning
> that it has a certain number of ISPs. It is also an edge network. It
> has ~35K employees and VPNs a subnet to each employee's home. ...
>
> Hence, I will argue that more than 65K
On Fri, Nov 26, 2004 10:29:15PM -0800, Fred Baker allegedly wrote:
> The thing that brings me out here is the "one size fits all" reasoning that
> seems to soll around this community so regularly. "Multihoming should
> always use provider-independent addressing" and "Multihoming should always
>
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004, Fred Baker wrote:
So here's my proposal. If you qualify for an AS number (have a reasonable
business plan, clueful IT staff, and a certain number of ISPs one connects
with), you should also be able to be a PI prefix.
And if you don't qualify for that, you should probably go
--On Friday, November 26, 2004 10:09 PM -0800 Fred Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
At 11:31 PM 11/25/04 -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
I think the policy _SHOULD_ make provisions for end sites and
circumstances like this, but, currently, I believe it _DOES NOT_ make
such a provision.
I understand t
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004, Fred Baker wrote:
> I think the length of the prefix given to a PI edge network should be
> permitted to be larger than a /48 (perhaps a /40 or a /35), but need not be
> as large as is given to an ISP (/30). Willing enough to take the /30, but I
> think the statistics likely d
At 10:09 PM 11/26/04 -0800, Fred Baker wrote:
IMHO, the rules that qualify someone for an AS number should qualify them
for a prefix. It need not be a truly long prefix, but larger than a /48.
Reading my own email - that isn't clear.
I think the length of the prefix given to a PI edge network shou
At 11:31 PM 11/25/04 -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
I think the policy _SHOULD_ make provisions for end sites and
circumstances like this, but, currently, I believe it _DOES NOT_ make such
a provision.
I understand the policy in the same way. That said, I believe that the
policy is wrong.
IMHO, the
What you really want is PI assignments in IPv6, and you shouldn't be
changing the PA allocation rules or interpretation of these rules so you
can get this under the radar.
I'm not trying to get anything under the RADAR. Yes, I want to see us
modify the policy to cover allocations and assignments,
Anyone starting out will be an end site, if that meant you could only
ever be an end site then there'd be nothing but end sites. Skip to the
not an end site section and meet those requirements instead.
Agreed... However, the letter of the law in the policy still should be
revisited to express that
On 26-nov-04, at 8:43, Owen DeLong wrote:
As such, it appears to be a catch 22. If your organization has transit
and PA space, apparently, as I read the policy, that would preclude you
from qualifying as an LIR without spinning off a separate ORG to do so,
then becoming a customer of that ORG.
I
> An end site is defined as an end user ...
Legal people make a lot from interpreting such documents
so it's best not to stare too long at them.
> As such, it appears to be a catch 22. If your organization has transit
> and PA space, apparently, as I read the policy, that would preclude you
> f
Generally, I don't like to cross-post, but, this is definitely an ARIN
policy
issue, so, I'm sending it to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List as well
([EMAIL PROTECTED]). While I think it is useful to discuss such issues on
NANOG,
the reality is that it is more useful to discuss them on PPML an
Actually, as I read the policy, if you're not assigning /48s to other
organizations, your an END SITE, not an LIR. Please show me where in
the policy it says different.
Sure, I can easily pretend to be the "internal" LIR for the "200 sub-
organizations" which may conveniently map to sites, but, th
Thus spake "Daniel Roesen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> And as this makes this whole 200-orgs constraint pathetic, there is
> an effort underway (or even already agreed upon?) at least in RIPE
> region, to just scratch it completely.
>
> So it boils down to:
>
> - you're a LIR (== you pay)
> - you will a
On 25-nov-04, at 21:20, Ryan O'Connell wrote:
Why do people keep talking about 200 sites? This is a fallacy.
If you're not assigning IP addresses to other users, (I.e. you're an
Enterprise rather than an ISP) you need 200 sites. (As you're
"allowed" one /48 per site, and need 200 /48s to get an
On Thu, Nov 25, 2004 at 08:20:01PM +, Ryan O'Connell wrote:
>
> On 25/11/2004 17:47, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> >Why do people keep talking about 200 sites? This is a fallacy.
>
> If you're not assigning IP addresses to other users, (I.e. you're an
> Enterprise rather than an ISP) you need 20
On 25/11/2004 17:47, Owen DeLong wrote:
Why do people keep talking about 200 sites? This is a fallacy.
If you're not assigning IP addresses to other users, (I.e. you're an
Enterprise rather than an ISP) you need 200 sites. (As you're "allowed"
one /48 per site, and need 200 /48s to get an assig
Why do people keep talking about 200 sites? This is a fallacy.
The policy actually says:
6.5. Policies for allocations and assignments
6.5.1. Initial allocation
6.5.1.1. Initial allocation criteria
To qualify for an initial allocation of IPv6 address space, an organization
must:
a) be an L
--On Thursday, November 25, 2004 10:27 AM +0100 Jeroen Massar
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 2004-11-25 at 09:17 +, Martin Hepworth wrote:
The BBC has lots and lots of small regional (and sub-regional) offices
to provide local radio and TV, not to mention their larger operations
like TV
--On Thursday, November 25, 2004 9:59 AM +0100 Jeroen Massar
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 2004-11-25 at 08:49 +, Ryan O'Connell wrote:
On 25/11/2004 08:07, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> It is sourced from AS31459, which is the BBC R&D AS, thus might be
> that it is still sort of experimental,
On Thu, 2004-11-25 at 15:04 +, Ryan O'Connell wrote:
> On 25/11/2004 12:42, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> > On Thu, 2004-11-25 at 10:55 +, Ryan O'Connell wrote:
> >
> > > - Any of a large variety of companies doing financial transactions
> > > online - (e.g. www.olf.co.uk, they do car finance v
On 25/11/2004 12:42, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On Thu, 2004-11-25 at 10:55 +, Ryan O'Connell wrote:
- Any of a large variety of companies doing financial transactions
online - (e.g. www.olf.co.uk, they do car finance via brokers over the
internet)
[snip stuff about various
On Thu, 2004-11-25 at 09:49 -0500, Nils Ketelsen wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2004 at 10:27:45AM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>
> > Which kind of makes the point, that they deserve the /32 and any
> > organization that has at least quite a number of employees can thus get
> > one. If you are too small,
On Thu, Nov 25, 2004 at 10:27:45AM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> Which kind of makes the point, that they deserve the /32 and any
> organization that has at least quite a number of employees can thus get
> one. If you are too small, then you are simply: too small.
>
> Compare it too the followin
On 25/11/2004 12:50, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
However, in the absense of that particular piece of information, I
have a hard time seeing how the BBC qualifies for a /32. Last time I
checked, they weren't an ISP. 200 sites doesn't qualify you for a /32:
it qualifies you for a /48 (jusst like o
On Thu, 2004-11-25 at 13:50 +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 25-nov-04, at 10:27, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>
> >> 200 locations doesn't seem that off to me..
>
> > That is exactly the right way to count ;)
>
> > Which kind of makes the point, that they deserve the /32
>
> Well, apparently RI
On 25-nov-04, at 10:27, Jeroen Massar wrote:
200 locations doesn't seem that off to me..
That is exactly the right way to count ;)
Which kind of makes the point, that they deserve the /32
Well, apparently RIPE thinks they do, so there must be some piece of
information that I'm not privvy to.
Ho
[eek ... html, please don't]
On Thu, 2004-11-25 at 10:55 +, Ryan O'Connell wrote:
> I've worked for quite a few smaller companies where Internet access
> for one reason or another is business-critical. Examples would be:
> (I've not worked for all of the companies listed, but I know about
> th
On 25/11/2004 08:59, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On Thu, 2004-11-25 at 08:49 +, Ryan O'Connell wrote:
The BBC are probably a bad example in this case, they're more of an
ISP/Content Provider than a typical Enterprise.
Thus do they reach the currently only 'problem rule' th
On Thu, 2004-11-25 at 09:17 +, Martin Hepworth wrote:
>
> The BBC has lots and lots of small regional (and sub-regional) offices
> to provide local radio and TV, not to mention their larger operations
> like TV center, broadcasting house, Pebble Mill and other production
> studios for progr
The BBC has lots and lots of small regional (and sub-regional) offices
to provide local radio and TV, not to mention their larger operations
like TV center, broadcasting house, Pebble Mill and other production
studios for programs like EastEnders. 200 locations doesn't seem that
off to me..
A
On Thu, 2004-11-25 at 08:49 +, Ryan O'Connell wrote:
> On 25/11/2004 08:07, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>
> >It is sourced from AS31459, which is the BBC R&D AS, thus might be
> >that it is still sort of experimental, but it is there.
> >
> >This also proves one big thing to all the people complainin
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
