Re: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google

["Christopher L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow () mci com>]

On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Daniel Golding wrote:

> Getting back on-topic - how can this be? I thought only service providers
> (with downstream customers) could get PI v6 space. Isn't this what policy
> proposal 2005-1 is about? Can someone (from ARIN?) explain the current
> policy?

what if they didn't ask for a prefix but instead just hammered their
providers for /48's? What's the difference to them anyway? (provided we
are just talking about them lighting up www.google.com in v6 of course)

If they wanted to start offering more 'services' (ip services perhaps?)
then they could say they were a 'provider' (All they need is a plan to
support 200 customers to get a /32) and start the magic of /32-ness...

> - Daniel Golding
>
> On 9/9/05 2:16 PM, "Steven J. Sobol" <sjsobol () JustThe net> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> >
> >
> > > I was thinking yesterday that IPv6 evangelization is a good reason,
> > > specially when recalling that Google asked for a prefix some time ago
> > > (http://www.ipv6tf.org/news/newsroom.php?id=1001) and something is probably
> > > being baked there ?
> >
> > So is the idea that Google adopts IPv6 and then, seeing that a large,
> > well-trafficked(sp?) website is actually using the technology, lots of
> > service providers and smaller sites follow suit?
> >
> > How widespread *is* IPv6 adoption, anyhow?