<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/></head><body style="font-family:Geneva,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">> > Why not continue give PA-addresses in this case? Many customers need them too.<br />
> Because you can't multihome PA addresses.<br />
<br />
/24 PA works excelent for multihome. I have a lot examples.<br />
<br />
> They can't rent them because the renting market has not yet developed, and<br />
> they can't use ipv6 because it's not usable at the moment.<br />
<br />
Just send me contacts and I'll help them. I mean IPv4 PA. It is not a problem at all.<br />
<div>
<br />
-- </div>
<div>
Alexey Ivanov</div>
<br />
07.11.2012 15:29 - Nick Hilliard написал(а):<br />
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4.0pt" type="cite">
On 07/11/2012 10:38, LeaderTelecom Ltd. wrote:<br />
> Why not continue give PA-addresses in this case? Many customers need them too.<br />
<br />
Because you can't multihome PA addresses.<br />
<br />
> We have to be consistent:<br />
> 1. Continue distribute last /8 for PA & PI.<br />
> OR<br />
> 2. Don't distribute last /8 for PA & PI (except LIR which didn't get 1024<br />
> IPs from last /8).<br />
><br />
> I think second option is more optimal, while some defficit and increasing<br />
> prices for IPv4 allow customers run IPv6 faster.<br />
><br />
> p.s. Who will PI-addresses? Why they can't rent them or start use IPv6?<br />
<br />
They can't rent them because the renting market has not yet developed, and<br />
they can't use ipv6 because it's not usable at the moment.<br />
<br />
Nick<br />
</div>
<br />
</body></html>