[address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012110601002595] Status of /24 PI IPv4 from last /8
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012110601002595] Status of /24 PI IPv4 from last /8
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012110601002595] Status of /24 PI IPv4 from last /8
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Piotr Strzyzewski
Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl
Wed Nov 7 15:49:20 CET 2012
On Wed, Nov 07, 2012 at 02:39:31PM +0000, Nick Hilliard wrote: > On 07/11/2012 14:18, Piotr Strzyzewski wrote: > > But your original point was: "Because you can't multihome PA addresses." > > Yes, you can. ;-) > > > > Please make your mind about your arguments. > > You can, with the implicit agreement of the LIR who holds the allocation > and the explicit agreement of a third party provider. If either choose not > to play agree, then your multihoming plans either won't work (third party > disagrees) or can be screwed up (LIR disagrees). Either way, it's not > provider independent in any meaningful way and can lead to serious business > harm if there is a breakdown in any of the arrangements. So, your point should be: "Because you can't always multihome PA addresses in the easy way.". ;-) Piotr -- gucio -> Piotr Strzyżewski E-mail: Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012110601002595] Status of /24 PI IPv4 from last /8
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012110601002595] Status of /24 PI IPv4 from last /8
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]