IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-icp-guidance-03.txt]

Nick Hilliard <nick@inex.ie> Fri, 31 August 2012 12:54 UTC

Return-Path: <nick@inex.ie>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9285921F85F4 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Aug 2012 05:54:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.419
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.419 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.180, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VeNZSO5WpLjH for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Aug 2012 05:54:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.acquirer.com (mail.acquirer.com [IPv6:2a03:8900:0:100::5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDC6321F8577 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Aug 2012 05:54:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Envelope-To: v6ops@ietf.org
Received: from crumpet.local (inet-gw.acquirer.com [87.198.142.10]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.acquirer.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q7VCqf2d038900 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 31 Aug 2012 13:52:41 +0100 (IST) (envelope-from nick@inex.ie)
Message-ID: <5040B3FB.7060502@inex.ie>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 13:54:19 +0100
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@inex.ie>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120824 Thunderbird/15.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tore Anderson <tore.anderson@redpill-linpro.com>
References: <5040646F.6000103@gmail.com> <50407CAB.4060903@redpill-linpro.com> <504094DD.9060708@gmail.com> <50409C2A.2060805@redpill-linpro.com>
In-Reply-To: <50409C2A.2060805@redpill-linpro.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.4
X-Company-Info-1: Internet Neutral Exchange Association Limited. Registered in Ireland No. 253804
X-Company-Info-2: Registered Offices: 1-2, Marino Mart, Fairview, Dublin 3
X-Company-Info-3: Internet Neutral Exchange Association Limited is limited by guarantee
X-Company-Info-4: Offices: 4027 Kingswood Road, Citywest, Dublin 24.
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-icp-guidance-03.txt]
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 12:54:25 -0000

On 31/08/2012 12:12, Tore Anderson wrote:
> The document continues in the same vein: «only large content providers
> can justify the bother and expense of obtaining a PI prefix». Can't say
> I agree.

+1.

PI is easy to get and there are plenty of smaller organisations who depend
on it for their business requirements (at least for ipv4).  There are no
substantial issues with routing PIv6 address space, because the minimum
assignment size is /48, which corresponds with the RIRs' recommendations on
minimum prefix filter length.

Nick

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email