You are correct about InternetNZ's generic policy position but they cannot dictate terms to NZ operators. Offering a /128 is a commercial decision, not a regulatory one.
If Steve wants a bigger allocation he needs to ask. If he doesn't like it he can vote with his feet - there are other options despite his comments. Disclaimers: I'm also a kiwi, a member of InternetNZ, and have a commercial relationship with the hosting provider Steve uses (and have corresponded with Steve both privately and via various mailing lists before now). My employer also offer a competing service to the one he is using. -- Mark. Sent from a mobile device. > On 18/03/2015, at 6:45, Franck Martin <fmar...@linkedin.com> wrote: > > >> On Mar 17, 2015, at 1:27 AM, Mark Foster <blak...@blakjak.net> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On 17/03/2015 7:28 p.m., Franck Martin wrote: >>> >>>> On Mar 16, 2015, at 9:17 PM, Steve Holdoway <st...@greengecko.co.nz> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Tue, 2015-03-17 at 03:28 +0000, John Levine wrote: >>>>>>> Are you saying your hosting provider gave your a /128 instead of a /64 ? >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes >>>>> >>>>> You need a better hosting provider. >>>>> >>>>> R's, >>>>> John >>>> >>>> Unfortunately we're not spoilt for choice down here... and some things >>>> have to stay onshore. >>> Raise the issue with internet.nz and meanwhile don’t use IPv6 for email... >> >> InternetNZ (internetnz.nz) won't be able to do much about it. > Not in the short term, but their role is to advocate good internet policies > in NZ, and giving a /128 to end users is not a good one. > > _______________________________________________ > mailop mailing list > mailop@mailop.org > http://chilli.nosignal.org/mailman/listinfo/mailop
_______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org http://chilli.nosignal.org/mailman/listinfo/mailop
