At 12:51 14/04/2005, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On Thu, 2005-04-14 at 11:49 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:
At 19:25 07/04/2005, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 10:22:49PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
as stealth PI) I'm keeping an open mind. Still, just repeating "200 is a problem" to eachother doesn't help, we need to know where the 200 limit gets in the way in the real world.
People are not making IPv6 allocation requests because they assume that they won't have 200 active IPv6 customers in two years time.
Those that *do* make requests usually find a way to word their "plan" in a way that the request is granted, but a fair number of smaller ISPs have told me that they didn't send in a request at all, due to not wishing to tell lies.
We are probably in this camp. We manage two transit networks, one of which is intended to manage itself in 2-3 years. I was able to get PI v4 space to address its PoPs, but the existing policies won't allow me to do the same for v6, so no point in applying.
Question, do you need: * Globally Unique Address Space or: * Globally Unique Address Space that is meant to be in the global routing tables(*1).
Or does a transit network count as an exchange?
IMHO, one can see it indeed as an exchange, in which case you will get the first option from the above question. But as it is a IX block it is not supposed to be in the routing tables as a single /48 and thus might not be globally routed.
It does need to be globally routeable. Our customer networks may have access to some of our infrastructure items. Now, they could make a hole in their policy and accept a /48, but exceptions are best avoided. In addition, we may host our web-servers at a PoP, and occasionally host third-party workstations at PoPs when we collaborate with the third parties on research projects. Cheers, -- Tim