[75475] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stephen Sprunk)
Sat Nov 13 13:42:52 2004
From: "Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@sprunk.org>
To: "Paul Vixie" <vixie@vix.com>
Cc: "North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes" <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 12:32:42 -0600
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Thus spake "Paul Vixie" <vixie@vix.com>
> iljitsch@muada.com (Iljitsch van Beijnum) writes:
>> Wow, IPv6 misinformation is reaching unprecendented heights here on
>> NANOG...
>
> yes. for example, you wrote...
>
>> There is currently no PI in IPv6 unless you're an internet exchange or
>> a root server.
>
> ...but i really do think of 2001:4f8::/32 as PI, even though ISC is
> neither
> an IX nor a rootserver. (f-root has its own /48, which is something
> else.)
So you're claiming that any IPv6 PI applicant without your political
connections to the IESG, ARIN, IANA, etc. can get a /32? I don't know
exactly how many subnets/hosts ISC has, but I seriously doubt ISC could even
get a PI /48 if you weren't buddies with the folks making allocation
decisions.
Most companies do not have the advantages you apparently take for granted;
the IETF thus far has been adamant that only ISPs will get PI space, no
matter how big an end-user site may be, exceptions for the IETF/IANA
leadership's employers notwithstanding.
S
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
