[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 ]
Andreas Larsen
andreas.larsen at ip-only.se
Tue Aug 9 16:44:43 CEST 2011
+1 I support the proposal On Sun, 2011-08-07 at 19:21 +0200, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote: > On 8/7/11 2:29 PM, Jasper Jans wrote: > > I support this proposal. > > +1 > > This just means we remove the need to lie anymore to IPRAs about > multihoming, if small/medium organization wants their IPv6 block and do > not plan to actually be multihomed. :) > > Actually, with this we remove the only reason why NAT66 could exist :) > Get your PI and don't translate addresses, if you change provider you > are still good. > > Cheers, Jan Zorz > -- IP-Only Telecommunication AB| Postadress: 753 81 UPPSALA | Besöksadress: S:t Persgatan 6, Uppsala | Telefon: +46 (0)18 843 10 00 | Direkt: +46 (0)18 843 10 56 www.ip-only.se
- 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 ]