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/
[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
Thu Dec 1 09:11:48 CET 2005
On 30 nov 2005, at 17.16, Daniel Roesen wrote: > ISPs do exist for customers, not customers do exist to feed ISPs > in the > most convenient way for the ISPs. Some folks seem to forget that, > looking at all the discussion trying to ignore the demand for real > multihoming (and that includes TE and network-wide routing policy > implementation, neither being delivered by things like shim6). I think you are contradicting yourself here. Shim6 does give the end- user TE capability. It does not give the ISP the possibility to ignore it, as they could today. I am not sure what you mean with "network-wide routing policy implementation".... I have still to figure out what the "real multihoming" thing is, but I am sure it must be beautiful. > HOW the requirements are being delivered is another topic. multi6 has > resulted in the decision to ignore many critical requirements. We're > just asking for something that delivers on the targets. Wasting time > with half-solutions is not productive. Halting any development because > the magic bullet wasn't found yet ain't either. If you have alternative ideas you know how it works - send text. - kurtis -
- 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 ]