ARIN IPv6 Policy Proposed
J. Scott Marcus
smarcus at genuity.com
Mon Mar 12 17:28:58 EST 2001
- Previous message: ARIN IPv6 Policy Proposed
- Next message: FW: status of IPng addressing documents
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
At 14:46 03/12/2001 -0600, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >Antonio Querubin wrote: >... >> The draft has the following recommendations: >> >> 1. Home network subscribers, connecting through on-demand or >> always-on connections should received a /48. >> 2. Small and large enterprises should received a /48.... < ... snip ...> >> It seems that #1 and #2 above could/should be qualified with having a >> requirement to subnet or be geographically dispersed. > >Do you want to be in the business of making that judgement on your users? Absolutely! Delegated through the ISPs, of course. I'd do it in a heartbeat. It imposes no burden to speak of. We KNOW what services we're selling, and to whom. The cable or DSL that we sell to a small household (suitable for, say, a /56) is a distinct service from the leased line connection that we sell to a medium or large enerprise. Marketing and deployment are separate or trivially separable. And if we are dynamically allocating an IP address to a dial-up user, we know that, too.
- Previous message: ARIN IPv6 Policy Proposed
- Next message: FW: status of IPng addressing documents
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the V6WG mailing list