[88679] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: protocols that don't meet the need...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kurt Erik Lindqvist)
Wed Feb 15 10:38:59 2006
In-Reply-To: <1140008212.13989.254430697@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 16:38:42 +0100
To: Per Heldal <heldal@eml.cc>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On 15 feb 2006, at 13.56, Per Heldal wrote:
> It's the lack of reality in operational policies that is the real
> source
> of frustration in ops communities. People are picking on shim6 because
> it is used as an argument to back the current policies at a time
> when it
> doesn't even have an early alpha-implementation to show for it.
> Policies
> built around shim6 may be ok in 5 or 10 years if or when it is mature
> with supporting technology to handle large networks, but not now.
> In the
> meantime we need a policy that can accomodate the need for multihoming
> of end-sites with *existing* technology. Without such a policy we will
> have anarchy with LIRs making their own policies (fragmentation) and
> people telling lies to qualify as a LIR to obtain independent blocks
> (unless there's a way to delay v6 deployment until there is technology
> available to back the current policy).
I am certainly no fan of the current rule-set and I have been known
to look favourable to a more relaxed ruleset as an intermediary step.
Personally I think we should drop the 200 customer rule and give a
prefix to all LIRs for the timebeeing. Actually the RIPE community
once decided that as the policy...
- kurtis -
