Hi, On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 02:38:56PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
Most (if not all) larger hosting providers I know are LIRs, so this question really doesn't apply. Then we will arrive at "LIRs are global pain to everybody else", and nothing has changed.
Which is touching the core of the problem: "can we agree upon who should be allowed to put a route into my routers"? LIRs seem to be a good choice, because many (most?) of them *do* allocate for third parties (which is a good thing for global aggregation) - and even for those that don't, the fact that there is a recurring fee involved shifts the balance a bit away from "PI is purely convenient for the holder and puts the costs only on everybody else" to "a portable IP block *does* have some costs attached". So in the end, we might want to abandon the "IPv6 PI" approaches, and radically change (loosen) the "IPv6 PA" policy. But *I* am not the one to decide that - I follow the discussions, and try to extract some sort of workable (for the next few years) compromise between the extreme positions, which will then re-enter the discussion. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 92315 SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234