-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Dan Lanciani wrote:
> "Jeroen Massar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > |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, > > Then why do it? Because it is "yet another option" and also one that is available now and doesn't need anything from the IETF, IANA or anybody else? > |But it is one solution that can be taken *now* by the (many?) companies > |that require this scenario. > > You appear to be suggesting it as an alternative to the > proposed permanent allocations which this thread is about. In that context it > has been proposed before. I do not believe that it is a good reason to delay > (or worse, reject) the current proposal for permanent allocations. I never said (or wrote for that matter) that I was against this proposal either ;) To clarify I commented on a reply which mentioned the money issue... > |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 ;) > > Why have this uncertainty in cost (and even in availability) > when we can have simple, permanent allocations as proposed? Alternate proposal, nothing against the unique-local proposal, some others raised cost concerns, thus I mentioned this alternative to them. Greets, Jeroen -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Alpha 13 Int. Comment: Jeroen Massar / http://unfix.org/~jeroen iQA/AwUBQD1g1SmqKFIzPnwjEQJHIACfeZZL0ojwOvf8wde7GJVU5HlEkAcAn0PO UkEOOCeLj6DPkBufWH37Jvh4 =p3hn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
