[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[6bone] RFC2772 rewrite

Im not sure if he meant IPv4 or IPv6 transits...

I dont think any maximum or minimum requirements should be set.  The maximum would restrict itself.
Enterprise companies and institues often dont have ipv4 transit at all (and colocated servers doesnt have "transit" either).
There are already pTLA-holders like this.

On http://www.6bone.net/6bone_hookup.html it says only ISP's can apply for a pTLA.  Maybe the definition of an ISP should be sorted
out ?


Joergen Hovland

----- Original Message -----
From: "Pekka Savola" <[email protected]>
To: "Nicolas DEFFAYET" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Bob Fink" <[email protected]>; "6BONE List" <[email protected]>; "David Kessens" <[email protected]>; "Robert Rockell"
<[email protected]>; "Gert Doering" <[email protected]>; "Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino" <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 11:22 PM
Subject: Re: [6bone] RFC2772 rewrite

> On 12 Nov 2002, Nicolas DEFFAYET wrote:
> > - The pTLA Applicant must have 2 transits.
> >
> > => a pTLA is for be independent of a upstream
> Do you mean:
> "The pTLA Applicant must have _only_ 2 transits"
> or
> "The pTLA Applicant must have at least 2 transits"
> or something like:
> "The pTLA Applicant must not acquire more than 2 transits"
> [my favourite :-)]
> Note -- I'm only half-joking here!
> Restricting the number of trensits a pTLA can have and provide transit for
> seems like a very sane approach to me!
> --
> Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
> Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
> Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords