[Perhaps this thread should migrate to Multi6?] On Sep 9, 2005, at 11:55 PM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Daniel Golding wrote:
Getting back on-topic - how can this be? I thought only service providers (with downstream customers) could get PI v6 space. Isn't this what policy proposal 2005-1 is about? Can someone (from ARIN?) explain the current policy?
what if they didn't ask for a prefix but instead just hammered their providers for /48's? What's the difference to them anyway? (provided we are just talking about them lighting up www.google.com in v6 of course)
If they wanted to start offering more 'services' (ip services perhaps?) then they could say they were a 'provider' (All they need is a plan to support 200 customers to get a /32) and start the magic of /32-ness...
Suppose they not only have no plan but couldn't really put together a plan to support 200 customers? Does this mean Google, or any other content provider, is "unworthy" of globally routeable space? IPv6 is a nice idea, and as soon as people realize that ISPs are not the only organizations who have a need to multi-home - and I mean really multi-home, not stupid work-arounds - then it might actually start to happen. -- TTFN, patrick