[ipv6-wg] Re: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Kurt Erik Lindqvist
kurtis at kurtis.pp.se
Mon Dec 5 14:17:25 CET 2005
On 1 dec 2005, at 11.44, Cameron C. Gray wrote: > Per Heldal wrote: >> Shim6 is work in progress and may be used as an argument to adjust >> adress-assignment policies sometime in the future. If we want ipv6 >> deployed today we have to provide a mechanism to support requirements >> about redundancy and independence from individual providers. > > I think this hit the nail on the head. Providers (especially those > non-LIR) will not accept something along the lines of SHIM6 or > A.N.Other > competing idea until it gives them just that -- INBOUND ROUTING > INDEPENDENCE. Now you are mixing two issues that Per separated though. Per pointed out that shim6 is work in progress while we need a policy now. > My view is relatively simple; either give everyone who wants one > and has > an AS-Number a /32 or allow /48s into the backbone table. This is of > course if we actually want to give up using IPv4; without the above > most > providers will see it as a step backward and a bad thing (tm). I think each LIR should get a /32 and we should drop the 200 "customer" rule. But that is just me... - kurtis -
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Andre's guide to fix IPv6
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]