[address-policy-wg] PI for IPv6 == PI for IPv4?
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] PI for IPv6 == PI for IPv4?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] PI for IPv6 == PI for IPv4?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet
Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at
Tue Aug 9 20:51:47 CEST 2011
Hi Jim, without a direct replay to your last message, let me explain why I am in favour of 2011-02. Jim Reid wrote: [...] > I'm neither for or against 2011-02: just trying to better understand > the rationale and motivation behind it. I am in contact with organisations who want (or are pushed :-) ) to deploy IPv6. Some of them have a very credible reason to use PI addresses, although they do not configure dual-homing *for IPv6* for the very beginning. Still, using PA is a bad choice for them. Possible reactions to this have either been becoming an LIR (potentially a waste of address space, plus additional cost, but option has been selected), or to delay the introduction of IPv6 for the moment; has been done, too :-) Hth, Wilfried.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] PI for IPv6 == PI for IPv4?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] PI for IPv6 == PI for IPv4?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]