[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 ]
Erik Bais
ebais at A2B-Internet.com
Mon Aug 8 11:32:24 CEST 2011
Hi Paul, That is indeed a very common setup and removing the multi-home requirement for v6 will allow us to do the same for those PI customers. Erik Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad Op Aug 8, 2011 om 11:06 heeft "Paul Hoogsteder" <paul at meanie.nl> het volgende geschreven: >> 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 ]