[84289] in North American Network Operators' Group
Multi-6 [WAS: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Sat Sep 10 02:19:11 2005
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0509100354150.26672@parapet.argfrp.us.uu.net>
Cc: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 02:18:34 -0400
To: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
[Perhaps this thread should migrate to Multi6?]
On Sep 9, 2005, at 11:55 PM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Daniel Golding wrote:
>> Getting back on-topic - how can this be? I thought only service
>> providers
>> (with downstream customers) could get PI v6 space. Isn't this what
>> policy
>> proposal 2005-1 is about? Can someone (from ARIN?) explain the
>> current
>> policy?
>
> what if they didn't ask for a prefix but instead just hammered their
> providers for /48's? What's the difference to them anyway?
> (provided we
> are just talking about them lighting up www.google.com in v6 of
> course)
>
> If they wanted to start offering more 'services' (ip services
> perhaps?)
> then they could say they were a 'provider' (All they need is a plan to
> support 200 customers to get a /32) and start the magic of /32-ness...
Suppose they not only have no plan but couldn't really put together a
plan to support 200 customers? Does this mean Google, or any other
content provider, is "unworthy" of globally routeable space?
IPv6 is a nice idea, and as soon as people realize that ISPs are not
the only organizations who have a need to multi-home - and I mean
really multi-home, not stupid work-arounds - then it might actually
start to happen.
--
TTFN,
patrick
