If you want to be ISP provider independent, you should have got
PI (Provider Independent ) address space from your LIR. though this is
discouraged by RIPE, ARAN, and IANA. due to backbone routing tables
explosion of routes
This is where your LIR assigns you global address space and not you ISP.
You could move ISP's transparently if you had these addresses instead of
the usual PA address space assigned, though you would need justification to
get them.
I think currently about 5% of RIPE's address space allocation requests are
PI address space,
and the rest are PA space..
Kind regards.
Paul.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nrf [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 21 September 2002 20:29
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: dumb question IPV6 [7:53712]
>
> >
> > For one, the economic benefit of being able to change ISPs without
> > internal numbering, and the consequence that the ISPs lose the
> > leverage of "locking in" customers to their address space. Remember
> > that in V6 addressing, only the low-order part of the address needs
> > to be enterprise-specific.
>
> It is difficult for me to see that there is enough money here to justify a
> transition.
>
> >
> > New revenue streams MAY be possible with some of the organizations
> > that already have adopted V6, such as 3rd generation wireless, HDTV,
> > and next-generation air traffic control.
>
> The key question there is 'may'. Carriers don't just spend money just
> because there may be new revenue streams - they have to be pretty darn
> sure
> there will be and how much and when they will start getting it and all
> that.
> Like I said, the dotcom silliness is over.
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> For example, people talk about how wonderful ipv6 is for
> > >> eliminating the
> > >> need for NAT and how you can now give every device in the world
> > >> its own
> > > > unique address.
> >
> > Speaking as someone who was there when the decisions on V6 were made,
> > and continuing to be active in NAT work, this "wonderful" idea is, in
> > the view of the IETF, urban legend. There was NEVER an attempt to
> > justify V6 because it could give a static address to everything in
> > the world. The long address is there because it allows provider
> > addressing information to be decoupled from enterprise addressing
> > information. I realize that there are large organizations, such as
> > the PRC government, that look at V6 as something that can give them
> > unique static addresses (and it could), but that's NOT the way it was
> > designed to be used.
>
> Good, very good. I'm glad somebody said this. Please come to
> alt.certification.cisco and set the guys there straight. Dudes over there
> seem to love ipv6 because they apparently see some reason in giving their
> toaster a globally unique address.
>
>
> >
> > Aside from the addressing aspects, there are also functional changes
> > in the protocol. Yes, pretty much all can be done with IPv4
> > extensions, but not as cleanly or as efficiently.
>
> I believe that almost everything in telecom could be done more cleanly and
> efficiently. The problem is that there is so much legacy infrastructure
> that nobody wants to throw out. One guy once said that God made the world
> in 7 days because he didn't have an installed base to deal with. I
> replied
> that it was more like God made the world in 7 days because he didn't have
> any gear on a 15-year depreciation schedule.
>
> >
> > >But the crucial question is how exactly do the
> > >> providers
> > > > benefit financially from all this?
> >
> > If nothing else, it gives providers the ability to get into new
> > accounts that previously were barred to them by the customer's
> > unwillingness to renumber out of provider-assigned addres space.
>
> That is, unfortunately, counteracted by providers who want to lock in
> accounts by forcing those accounts to renumber if they want to get another
> provider. So I think it's a wash.
****************************************************************************************
This E-mail is from O2. The E-mail and any files
transmitted with it are confidential and may also be privileged and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
Any unauthorised direct or indirect dissemination, distribution or copying
of this message and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have
received the E-mail in error please notify [EMAIL PROTECTED] or
telephone ++ 353 1 6095000.
*****************************************************************************************
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=53815&t=53712
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
