[address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI resource question!
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI resource question!
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI resource question!
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sergey Myasoedov
sergey at devnull.ru
Mon Feb 14 17:12:46 CET 2011
Hello, Monday, February 14, 2011, 4:24:05 PM, you wrote: >> So ... should we propose to remove the multihoming barrier ? >> What is the feeling of the list members ? SS> The last time we discussed this the feeling seemed to be that such a SS> limitation was necessary to prevent an explosion of the IPv6 routing SS> table. On the other hand we want people to start using IPv6. I am really SS> curious what the rest of the list thinks about this. I think that current IPv6 assignment policy delays IPv6 implementation. ISPs can assign addresses using point-to-point protocols or even give /64 from the PI /48 assignment or use whole /48 for own infrastructure - you'll never know this exactly. As for me, an additional barrier for migration to IPv6 should be removed. -- Sergey
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI resource question!
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI resource question!
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]