[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 ]
Jan Zorz @ go6.si
jan at go6.si
Mon Aug 8 13:07:46 CEST 2011
On 8/8/11 12:51 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote: > On 06/08/2011 11:42, Erik Bais wrote: >> In short, the policy proposal is to remove the multi-homing requirement for >> PI IPv6. >> Currently, companies can become a LIR and get IPv6, with no multi-home >> requirement, same with requesting IPv4 PI. > > I don't support this policy as it stands, because it makes it too easy to > get PI space instead of PA space. This will cause deaggregation in the > ipv6 DFZ. > > Deaggregation is a serious operational issue which gets monotonically worse > over time. It never improves, and 2011-02 will simply aggravate the problem. the best solution then is to give IPv6 space to nobody, so routing tabe does not deagregate and grow beyond memory limits :) Joke aside, if enterprises and mid-sized companies can get IPv6 PI without multihoming requirements and this means this lowers the need of NAT66 - I'm all for it. If we think multihoming requirement is a speed-bump for folx requesting IPv6 space, remove it. Maybe we could charge more for PI that does not show multihoming and usual price for PI that does multihoming. Cheers, Jan
- 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 ]