Re: [OPSAWG] Heads up - Plea for allocating a /8 to ISPs
Chris Donley <C.Donley-AwJHAePZ/[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.v6ops,gmane.ietf.ops |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <76AC5FEF83F1E64491446437EA81A61F7D20316286@srvxchg> |
Not quite...a lot of address space that is justified under RIR allocation policies (est. 60 million addresses) would not be allocated for this purpose in the future. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Lindqvist Kurt Erik Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 4:12 AM To: Victor Kuarsingh Cc: IPv6 Operations; james woodyatt; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] [v6ops] Heads up - Plea for allocating a /8 to ISPs On 11 nov 2010, at 09.27, Victor Kuarsingh wrote: > >>>> >>>> What advantage is there in directing *IANA* to do it? >> >> I understand why you want to use a prefix not listed in RFC 1918. I >> don't understand why getting it from IANA will be any better for you >> than if you get it from Joe's House Of IPv4 Addresses. >> > The goal here was that in aggregate, the provides use less global > space for a common use. It is more efficient for providers to share a > block, then all go to the RIRs and ask for their own slice. To make sure I understand this - then the opposite should also be true. That if a /10 is given for this, a lot of address space could be returned to the RIRs free pools? Best regards, - kurtis - _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops