nanog mailing list archives

Re: Important IPv6 Policy Issue -- Your Input Requested


From: Niels Bakker <niels=nanog () bakker net>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 13:51:50 +0100


* hank () mail iucc ac il (Hank Nussbacher) [Tue 09 Nov 2004, 09:18 CET]:
I think you need to look at one of the authors - Nokia.  Perhaps 
2001:490::/32 and 3FFE:8130::/28 are not enough for what they have in 
mind.  Perhaps someone from RIPE should sit down with Nokia (and
perhaps all the other cell makers) and find out what they truly want
and why these IETF drafts solve their problem.  Perhaps just giving
them what they want (and think they will need) will make this all go
away?

I remember a RIPE meeting a few years ago where a BT Cellnet
representative seriously asked to become an RIR with an initial /8
allocation for use among mobile operators.  If I recall correctly, he
was quietly laughed out of the room - and rightly so (as existing RIRs
are more than capable of handling any address request they might have).

I'm pretty sure Nokia, not being a network operator, has little use
for large amounts of address space.

For a mobile operator, I assume a standard allocation should be enough;
and if not I'm sure the RIR community is reasonable enough to listen to
the mobile operator's arguments.


        -- Niels.


Current thread: