[ipv6-wg] Re: IPv6 PI
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Elmar K. Bins
elmi at 4ever.de
Mon Nov 21 17:27:02 CET 2005
lea.roberts at stanford.edu (Lea Roberts) wrote: > this was the original ARIN proposal 2005-1, which could not reach > consensus. The last time around it was re-worked to add more restrictions > and again failed because other folks felt it was too restrictive. There > are actually two issues: > > 1) the high cost of renumbering in a large organization Why should they renumber, if it's their own block? > 2) multi-homing for network reliability and resiliency Where's the problem here? Someone who can afford and establish a case for _real_ multihoming can get an ASN and thus an assignment. Like was already said - loosening the ASN handout rules needs changes in assignment rules, too. But that's for years to come. Yours, Elmi. -- "Begehe nur nicht den Fehler, Meinung durch Sachverstand zu substituieren." (PLemken, <bu6o7e$e6v0p$2 at ID-31.news.uni-berlin.de>) --------------------------------------------------------------[ ELMI-RIPE ]---
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] IPv6 PI
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]