[address-policy-wg] Re: IPv6 PI resource question!
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: IPv6 PI resource question!
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Re: IPv6 PI resource question!
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Shane Kerr
shane at time-travellers.org
Tue Feb 15 10:14:41 CET 2011
Daniel, On Tue, 2011-02-15 at 08:48 +0100, Daniel Roesen wrote: > On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 03:50:39PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > > So ... should we propose to remove the multihoming barrier ? > > > > What is the feeling of the list members ? > > +1 > > On one side, RIPE advocates "we don't care about routing" (IPv4 PI > prefix size, see stalled proposal 2006-05 to fix that), on the other > side RIPE requests routing policy (multihoming for IPv6 PI). This > is arguing with split tongue. You can't have it both ways. > > IP address space is not only for use on "the Internet". It's also for > private networks or hybrid networks (extranets etc.). Requiring > "Internet" multihoming is an artificial limitation not really justified > when claiming the role of sole owner of IP addresses in a region. > > So yes, get rid of the multihoming requirement. Speaking only from the IPv6 side, there are several options if you only need IPv6 space for internal reasons: * ULA addresses, with random addresses * 6to4 addresses, using one or more of your IPv4 addresses Perhaps someday we'll see ULA with a central registry too (that is in itself a long-going, bikeshed discussion that makes me very sleepy). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unique_local_address -- Shane
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: IPv6 PI resource question!
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Re: IPv6 PI resource question!
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]