On Thu, 14 Sep 2006, david raistrick wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006, kloch wrote:
http://www.arin.net/registration/templates/v6-end-user.txt
An org that already has IPv4 space from ARIN will find it trivial to
complete.
I wonder how well this would apply to orgs with pre-ARIN allocations,
p
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006, kloch wrote:
http://www.arin.net/registration/templates/v6-end-user.txt
An org that already has IPv4 space from ARIN will find it trivial to
complete.
I wonder how well this would apply to orgs with pre-ARIN allocations,
particularly smaller blocks.
...david
---
davi
> The 8xx system is the one which maps to domain names,
> not the standard land-line system.
In the United States, due to number portability regulations,
the standard land-line phone numbers also map to domain
names because they are no longer used for routing calls.
In the UK, mobile phone number
On Sep 13, 2006, at 1:27 PM, David Barak wrote:
Perhaps a customer who wanted to make IP addresses
"portable" would pay a fee to the ISP whose addresses
they are, and maintain redirection equipment to the
"real" IPs... And perhaps the price of doing so would
actually be higher than just keepi
David Barak wrote:
2)
many/most medium-large enterprises neither qualify for
PI addressing nor would be able to multihome using PA
addressing.
Issue #2 is being worked on now, but until a policy is
securely in place, an enterprise adopting IPv6 is
giving up capabilities they have today with IPv
--- David Conrad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have been told on numerous occasions that one of
> the reasons IPv6
> has not seen significant deployment is because
> enterprises do not
> want to obtain their address space from their
> service provider due to
> (among other reasons) the c
