|
|
 |
Re: [ipv6-wg] Re: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6
-
To: Cameron C. Gray <>
-
From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <>
-
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 14:17:25 +0100
-
Cc: Per Heldal <>,,
On 1 dec 2005, at 11.44, Cameron C. Gray wrote:
Per Heldal wrote:
Shim6 is work in progress and may be used as an argument to adjust
adress-assignment policies sometime in the future. If we want ipv6
deployed today we have to provide a mechanism to support requirements
about redundancy and independence from individual providers.
I think this hit the nail on the head. Providers (especially those
non-LIR) will not accept something along the lines of SHIM6 or
A.N.Other
competing idea until it gives them just that -- INBOUND ROUTING
INDEPENDENCE.
Now you are mixing two issues that Per separated though. Per pointed
out that shim6 is work in progress while we need a policy now.
My view is relatively simple; either give everyone who wants one
and has
an AS-Number a /32 or allow /48s into the backbone table. This is of
course if we actually want to give up using IPv4; without the above
most
providers will see it as a step backward and a bad thing (tm).
I think each LIR should get a /32 and we should drop the 200
"customer" rule. But that is just me...
- kurtis -
|
|
|
|
