[address-policy-wg] Status of 2011-02 Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)?
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Status of 2011-02 Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Status of 2011-02 Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Paul Hoogsteder
paul at meanie.nl
Mon Aug 8 11:06:54 CEST 2011
> On 8/8/11 10:36 AM, DI. Thomas Schallar wrote: >> To have our IPv6 space be explicitly multihomed, we have to >> >> * apply for an AS for proper BGP announcement >> * change fom cheap Internet uplink to expensive transit > > that does not change with removing the multihoming requirement. PI is > still PI and you need to announce it via BGP and your ASN. Why? We (as a multihomed ISP) announce both our own PA blocks and one of our customers PI block in v4 - why wouldn't that work/be allowed in v6? There's no need for an ASN or BGP capable router at the customer. Paul.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Status of 2011-02 Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Status of 2011-02 Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]