shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne)
niels=nanog at bakker.net
Fri Mar 3 01:15:16 UTC 2006
* Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com (Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com) [Thu 02 Mar 2006, 17:03 CET]:
>If your current business model means that your business
>cannot continue in an IPv6 world, then a competent
>business manager will change that model. If the IPv6
I assume that you mean that the IPv6 model will be changed, no?
Because I hope that it has become clear from this thread that the
adoption of IPv6 by a significant amount of players currently reachable
over IPv4 is far from certain, and unless IPv6 offers at least feature
compatibility it may not even happen.
>If you feel you should qualify as an LIR, then apply
>for your /32. If you get rejected, asked for detailed
>reasons why. If the reasons are due to misunderstanding
>or a lack of information, then remedy the situation and
>reapply. If the reasons have to do with your structure or
>your plans, then change them and reapply. If you can't do
>that then I would question whether you have a serious
>intention to be an IPv6 service provider.
Why should a certain business model be forced upon you? To multihome
right now you need to cough up some money for equipment and some clue
for configuration. Why would IPv6 require you to change your business
model to achieve the same?
>> One customer on one dedicated server gets a /128.
That is, of course, insane. IPv6 addresses are far from rare. Why do
you a priori rule out applications like https and virtualisation?
More information about the NANOG