This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Draft Document Published (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6 PI)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Draft Document Published (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6 PI)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Draft Document Published (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6 PI)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
James Blessing
james.blessing at despres.co.uk
Wed Jun 29 15:50:23 CEST 2011
On 29 June 2011 14:25, Remco Van Mook <Remco.vanMook at eu.equinix.com> wrote: > This is a bit of a complicated hat situation. The RIPE NCC merely executes > policy set by the community, so with my board hat on I find it difficult > to go as far as even offering suggestions. While I do sympathise with the > rationale behind the proposal, doing it this way strikes me as having an > awful lot of (unintended?) side effects. I personally don't have a better > suggestion to achieve resolution of the problem that this proposal aims to > fix, but at the same time I'm unconvinced that everybody's who's been > supporting the proposal has been doing so for the problem this policy aims > to fix, and not one of its (again, unintended?) side effects. Okay can we be clear about the reason for doing this before we continue with the discussion... A single IPv6 route will consume 4 x the space of a v4 route, whilst we are in the transition phase between v4 and v6 and having to allocate memory to both protocols adding potentially the equivalent to 70k to the routing table 'just because its easier' doesn't strike me as the most sensible thing to do in the world. Transition between 2 IPv6 suppliers (unlike IPv4) "shouldn't" require the same level of manual reconfiguration due IPv6's complexity crying out for some form of automation in its deployment in the first place. What I believe we should be looking at is education of the differences between v4 and v6 rather than changing policy. J -- James Blessing 07989 039 476
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Draft Document Published (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6 PI)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Draft Document Published (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6 PI)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]