-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Dan Lanciani wrote:
> "Jeroen Massar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > |I have only one note on the "unique local ipv6 address" subject: > | > |Organisations wanting "unconnected addressspace" should go to > |an existing organisation that they think will outlast them in age > |and that already has a LIR allocation allocated. Give them some > |money to make them happy and request a /48 from them. <SNIP> > I'm sure that some ISP could see business in this. What I > don't understand is why it is necessary or desirable to create a revenue > stream for ISPs in this way. Could you explain how it is beneficial to the v6 > user community add an artificial address rental cost to internal > networking operations? I never said that it would be benificial to the user community, of which I am one who currently also only gets 1 public IP for his ADSL line unless I pay a lot extra to get some extra v4 addresses. But it is one solution that can be taken *now* by the (many?) companies that require this scenario. The 'pay some money' in the scenario above could also be replaced by 'rub his back' or 'donate a keg of beer' which makes many ISP's happy already. One could also request a /48 from one of the many Tunnel Broker systems out there and just don't use it globally ;) I am personally still at thought that most if not any system will be internet connected at some point and that organisations should get globally routable space and firewall it away. Greets, Jeroen -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Alpha 13 Int. Comment: Jeroen Massar / http://unfix.org/~jeroen iQA/AwUBQD0EjimqKFIzPnwjEQL4TgCfcfhh1ANbAYFi+RZGq+oMNDwMJeIAnjDm RbKjzNUWkrkW9aDEPhi3h4oz =kLL1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
