protocols that don't meet the need...

Kurt Erik Lindqvist kurtis at kurtis.pp.se
Wed Feb 15 15:38:42 UTC 2006


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 -



More information about the NANOG mailing list