RE: [address-policy-wg] 200 customer requirements for IPv6

[Jørgen Hovland <]

-----Original Message-----
From: address-policy-wg-admin@localhost
[
	    
	    
] On Behalf Of Andre Oppermann

>There is NO WAY for large corporate and government entities to put them
>at the mercy of any single random ISP again.  They've learned it the
>hard way with IPv4 already and go exclusively with PI address space now.
>
>NATO is a prime example for this.  I'm doing a lot of consulting for
>large enterprises regarding IP addressing, multihoming and ISP
>independence.
>Based on that experience I can say with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that with
>the current policy IPv6 does not NOT get adopted AT ALL in any large corp.

I am not going to say you are incorrect because you aren't, but speaking as
a LIR and internet service provider you need to have a look at the
possibilities:

We have customers of so high importance, "NATO style", that we need
multihomed lines to them; multihomed in the way that they have multiple
lines but only to us, but if one goes down then the others are still up
using HSRP, BGP etc. So should these customers perhaps get PI instead
because they sooner or later will as you say "learn" that we cannot provide
a good service?

I have also configured redundant lines for other companies to other ISPs
than the one I work for where these lines only go to a single ISP. I have
not received any indication of that they wanted PI instead and multiple
ISPs, nor did I suggest that they should get PI so we could sell them a line
too because I did not see the reason for it. Nobody here is thinking about
bankruptcy anyway.

I don't really have any valid arguments for or against PI. I am just telling
some facts of what some non-PI holders do today.


Joergen Hovland