[ppml] Fw: IRS goes IPv6!

[Randy Bush]

> You effectively said they would not be considered 'service providers' when
> applying for IPv6 space because they do not currently operate using the
> 'internet' protocol (implies IPv4).

s/implies/you imply/

> They are clearly providing a service that interconnects multiple
> customers, so their crime of historically using a different
> protocol appears to be excluding them from the club with access
> to address space for the new protocol.

what ever are you smoking?

we have pretty good policies where folk who actually need internet
address space get it according to their needs.  having four wheeled
vehicles that go between places is currently not in the set of
methods used to justify those needs.  if you think that trucking
should be part of the ipv6 address architecture, then the ivtf
would be a great place to discuss that, as ops clue and simplicity
would get in the way.

randy

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Randy Bush [mailto:randy at psg.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 1:15 PM
>> To: Tony Hain
>> Cc: 'Davis, Terry L'; 'Rob Seastrom'; 'PPML'
>> Subject: RE: [ppml] Fw: IRS goes IPv6!
>> 
>> >>> I would hope that no one questioned whether SITA, Arinc, and Inmarsat
>> >>> were "service providers"!
>> >>
>> >> definitely not, along with the us post, ups, and consolidated
>> freightways
>> >>
>> >> just in case you missed it, the "i" in "arin" stands for "internet"
>> >
>> > Precluding organizations from entering a different business than they
>> > traditionally operate is consider restraint of trade...
>> 
>> then you should not preclude them, tony.  that would be bad of you.
>> even worse than accusing others of saying what they did not.
>> 
>> blechhh