About RIPE | Contact  | Search | Sitemap    
Homepage RIPE  
RIPE Community Mail Archives
search  
     
RIPE Navigation Ends
About RIPE Maillists
Maillists Archive
Global Lists
Non Active Lists
RIPE NCC Navigation Ends
Next Section

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 -




 

Next Section
     About RIPE | Site Map | LIR Portal | About the RIPE NCC | Contact | Copyright Statement
RIPE.NET Homepage LIR Portal RIPE Community