North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]

  • From: Jeroen Massar
  • Date: Thu Nov 18 12:04:39 2004

On Thu, 2004-11-18 at 16:50 +0000, Paul Vixie wrote:
> > For *THAT* matter, I've heard a lot of people over on the main IETF list
> > in the last week or so stating that SMTP is only 1-2% of many places' total
> > bandwidth usage.  So why don't we all just cut *THAT* off because there's
> > no business case to support *THAT* either? :)
> 
> let's be clear about the remaining roadblocks.  just because some of you don't
> like tony li or don't like what he said, doesn't make what he said less true.

We all *hate* Mr.Li (is there any reason to? :)

> <SNIP> but for enterprises large or medium who build their own networks and
> buy service from more than one provider and/or who peer directly, they'll
> either have to have their own /32 or they'll use NAT.

They should use NAP, NAT is the IPv4 thing, NAP is for IPv6 ;)
Larger enterprises probably consist of 200 'sites' already, eg seperate
offices, locations etc. Thus they can, after becoming a LIR and getting
an ASN, which most of the time they already have, easily get a /32.

Actually, I would even go so far that the really large corps should be
able to get a /32 from every RIR when they globally have offices, this
could allow them to keep the traffic at least on the same continent, not
having to send it to another place of the world themselves.

That would really put the constraint on ASN's of course and thus: 65k*3
= maximum of ~180k prefixes when every ASN owner did this (and they
won't in most if not all cases).

[--ot--]

On Thu, 2004-11-18 at 16:40 +0000, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
> In article <cistron.1100794375.3557.3.camel@firenze.zurich.ibm.com>,
> Jeroen Massar  <jeroen@unfix.org> wrote:
> >The business case of about 80% of the ISP's is Pr0n & W4R3z (or what
> >spelling is 'in' this year?)
> >
> >But.... it is not illegal to make adverts for say "Downloading the
> >newest movies over a cool 8mbit DSL line". But downloading it itself is
> >of course. Might be analogous to providing a busservice to the crack
> >dealers mansion.
> 
> [OT]
> 
> That depends on the jurisdiction. In many parts of the world,
> downloading is NOT illegal. But making copyrighted files available
> for download is illegal (without the proper autorization, ofcourse).

Thus... say a newsserver full of illegal stuff is quite illegal?
Or that other nice example 'proxy servers', they store the data and then
relay it. A router could be said to 'store' the data also (in registers
for like a zillionth microsecond ;) and 

Greets,
 Jeroen

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part