BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI prefix [Re: who gets a /32)

Fri Nov 26 07:31:02 UTC 2004

Actually, as I read the policy, if you're not assigning /48s to other
organizations, your an END SITE, not an LIR.  Please show me where in
the policy it says different.

Sure, I can easily pretend to be the "internal" LIR for the "200 sub-
organizations" which may conveniently map to sites, but, there's nothing
in the policy (at least in my reading of it) that says anything like
what you have said below.

I think the policy _SHOULD_ make provisions for end sites and circumstances
like this, but, currently, I believe it _DOES NOT_ make such a provision.

Owen

--On Thursday, November 25, 2004 8:20 PM +0000 Ryan O'Connell 
<ryan-nanog at complicity.co.uk> wrote:

> On 25/11/2004 17:47, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> Why do people keep talking about 200 sites?  This is a fallacy.
>
>
> If you're not assigning IP addresses to other users, (I.e. you're an
> Enterprise rather than an ISP) you need 200 sites. (As you're "allowed"
> one /48 per site, and need 200 /48s to get an assignment.) RIPE policy is
> pretty much identical to ARIN.

-- 
If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20041125/dadc5223/attachment.sig>