[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 ]
Jasper Jans
Jasper.Jans at espritxb.nl
Mon Aug 8 11:39:32 CEST 2011
This is in 95% of the cases also how we run things. >> 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. > > True. Not very "clean" way, but definitely possible. It would be nice to > have some data on "how common" is this way of announcing PI space. > Probably we could find out how many PI allocations don't have their own ASN. Op dit e-mailbericht is een disclaimer van toepassing, welke te vinden is op http://www.espritxb.nl/disclaimer
- 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 ]