[address-policy-wg] RE: Question
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RE: Question
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RE: Question
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Marc van Selm
marc.van.selm at nc3a.nato.int
Mon Apr 24 09:10:26 CEST 2006
On Thursday 20 April 2006 15:24, Sascha Lenz wrote: > Hi, > > Gert Doering schrieb: > > Hi, > > > > On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 04:14:47PM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote: > >> I wouldn't recommend advertising more specifics to anyone... and > >> again, I consider that a feature :-) > > > > Well, the combination of "no PI", "no working non-PI/BGP-multihoming > > solution" and "PA+BGP multihoming not working either" is certainly > > not something that makes currently-multihomed customers want to move to > > IPv6... > > so, let's switch to discussing > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-01.html I would support this policy proposal. This would be a sound alternative to those that need to be a LIR today but do not really have to be a LIR but only require address-space that does not tie them with 1 or 2 providers "for life" and gives them the possibility to have global multi-homing (so for example, 2 access points to the Net: 1x US, 1x Europe and a private global corporate network to provide internal connectivity). Marc van Selm -- -- This mail is personal -- All statements in this mail are made from my own personal perspective and do not necessarily reflect my employer's opinions or policies.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RE: Question
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RE: Question
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]