[75217] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Niels Bakker)
Tue Nov 9 07:52:17 2004
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 13:51:50 +0100
From: Niels Bakker <niels=nanog@bakker.net>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20041109095533.00ad20b8@mail.iucc.ac.il>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
* hank@mail.iucc.ac.il (Hank Nussbacher) [Tue 09 Nov 2004, 09:18 CET]:
> I think you need to look at one of the authors - Nokia. Perhaps
> 2001:490::/32 and 3FFE:8130::/28 are not enough for what they have in
> mind. Perhaps someone from RIPE should sit down with Nokia (and
> perhaps all the other cell makers) and find out what they truly want
> and why these IETF drafts solve their problem. Perhaps just giving
> them what they want (and think they will need) will make this all go
> away?
I remember a RIPE meeting a few years ago where a BT Cellnet
representative seriously asked to become an RIR with an initial /8
allocation for use among mobile operators. If I recall correctly, he
was quietly laughed out of the room - and rightly so (as existing RIRs
are more than capable of handling any address request they might have).
I'm pretty sure Nokia, not being a network operator, has little use
for large amounts of address space.
For a mobile operator, I assume a standard allocation should be enough;
and if not I'm sure the RIR community is reasonable enough to listen to
the mobile operator's arguments.
-- Niels.
