[address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Michiel Klaver
michiel at klaver.it
Fri May 6 13:08:35 CEST 2011
Considering the arguments from both David and Job, I would also like to express my support. With kind regards, Michiel Klaver At 06-05-2011 12:40, Job Snijders wrote: > Dear All, > > I agree with removing the multi-homing requirement for IPv6 PI. > > Its pretty awkward to send your customers to a competitor because to deploy IPv6 PI space he or she needs to be multi-homed. Also, rising technologies such as LISP allow end-users to be multi-homed in a way that is transparent to the DFZ, so why bother restricting people to BGP multi-homing. > > Kind regards, > > Job Snijders At 06-05-2011 12:28, David Monosov wrote: > Dear address-policy-wg, > > I would like to express my support for this policy proposal. > > The promise of auto-configuration making transitioning between v6 prefixes > seamless is not yet fully delivered, and eliminating the manual renumbering > overhead when moving between service providers, as well as having a clear path > to multihoming ("just add ASN") should assure a lively Internet services market > for years to come. > > -- > Respectfully yours, > > David Monosov
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]