Re: PI space under IPv6

On Jan 17, 2007, at 12:51 AM, Roger Jorgensen wrote:
> I really wish people could stop using the phrases PI and PA when  
> talking about IPv6.

Why?

> I don´t see any reason why implementing PI in IPv6 at all.

This seems to be at odds with the way policies have been developing  
within the various RIRs, e.g., <http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/ 
proposals/prop-035-v002.html>, <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/ 
proposals/2006-01.html>, <http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/ 
2005_1.html>, and <http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/afpol- 
v60604.htm>.

> Larger corp should be able to get a IPv6 block and if it´s not  
> possible, change the policies so it become possible.

Of course, somebody will need to define "larger".

> And we just move problems with us to IPv6 from IPV4 instead of  
> solve the basic problem,

Yes, we are.

> everyone want IP space but not everyone can get it, we need to find  
> a common place in the middle somewhere.
>
> PI will not be the solution.

Without a way of allowing provider independence, I suspect NAT will  
be the solution.

Rgds,
-drc


_______________________________________________
global-v6 mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6