[ppml] 2005-1:Business Need for PI Assignments

[Owen DeLong]

Yes, David, but, ULA is proof that we will not do so.

Owen


--On Wednesday, April 20, 2005 8:47 AM -0700 David Conrad
<david.conrad at nominum.com> wrote:

> Ben,
> 
> While I understand the position you put forward, if addresses are not
> obtained from providers, then the address prefix will need to appear in
> all default-free routers through which connectivity is desired.  It is,
> of course, true that at this point in time there is plenty of space in
> the "global routing tables", the question is, will that last for the
> lifetime of IPv6?
> 
> Many people feel it would be wise to learn from previous mistakes.
> 
> Rgds,
> -drc
> 
> On Apr 20, 2005, at 7:48 AM, Benjamin Crawford wrote:
> 
>> It is extremely important to realize that
>> organizations, with responsibilities to their
>> customers and shareholders, will not be willing to
>> move forward with IPv6 if their v6 allocations will be
>> tied in to a specific service provider.  This point
>> was made by several representatives at the PPM in
>> Orlando and needs to be given strong consideration.
>> IPv6 acceptance will continue to be prolonged until a
>> time that a policy or technology is put in to place
>> that will not bind an organization to a service
>> provider due to an IPv6 allocation.  At this time, the
>> policy should be supported to help get v6 off of the
>> shelf and accepted by many of the businesses out there
>> who are starting to look at this new protocol.   -Ben Crawford
>> 
>> __________________________________________________
>> Do You Yahoo!?
>> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>> http://mail.yahoo.com
>> 
> 



-- 
If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20050420/0cb8db0f/attachment.sig>