Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: protocols that don't meet the need...
From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis () kurtis pp se>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 16:38:42 +0100



On 15 feb 2006, at 13.56, Per Heldal wrote:

It's the lack of reality in operational policies that is the real source
of frustration in ops communities. People are picking on shim6 because
it is used as an argument to back the current policies at a time when it doesn't even have an early alpha-implementation to show for it. Policies
built around shim6 may be ok in 5 or 10 years if or when it is mature
with supporting technology to handle large networks, but not now. In the
meantime we need a policy that can accomodate the need for multihoming
of end-sites with *existing* technology. Without such a policy we will
have anarchy with LIRs making their own policies (fragmentation) and
people telling lies to qualify as a LIR to obtain independent blocks
(unless there's a way to delay v6 deployment until there is technology
available to back the current policy).

I am certainly no fan of the current rule-set and I have been known to look favourable to a more relaxed ruleset as an intermediary step. Personally I think we should drop the 200 customer rule and give a prefix to all LIRs for the timebeeing. Actually the RIPE community once decided that as the policy...

- kurtis -


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]