|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
In-Reply-To: <42CD3AFF.5030607@nrg4u.com> Cc: NANOG list <nanog@merit.edu> From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com> Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 17:31:25 +0200 To: Andre Oppermann <nanog-list@nrg4u.com> Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu On 7-jul-2005, at 16:23, Andre Oppermann wrote: >>> Err... So you want to protect the incumbent ISP's? No, it should always be possible to start new ISPs. >>> Even those once >>> started off with 200 customers. Who is going to decide if some >>> (today) >>> small ISP is worthy of receiving its own PA space or not? >> Pretty much any ISP is capable of obtaining their own PA space >> under current RIR policies, regardless of size. In ARIN, RIPE and APNIC regions you need to plan to give out address pace to 200 customers within a few years. So only ISPs who are small now and are pessimistic about their future growth don't qualify. >> The myth that only large, established ISPs are able to obtain PA >> IPv6 address space really needs to disappear. > It was about a spot in the global routing table. No matter if one > gets > PA or PI they get a routing table entry in the DFZ. There is no > way around > it other than to make the routing protocols more scaleable. If the routing table is large, making the protocols that create the routing table better won't help you. The problem is that today, everyone occupies a slot at the top of the global hierarchy. I'm not saying people shouldn't occupy slots, I'm saying they don't have to be at the top of the global hierarchy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |