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/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] Re: a consensus, about what?
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] a consensus, about what?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Crossposting to address policy and ipv6 working group mail lists
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Tue Dec 6 09:56:04 CET 2005
Hi,
On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 09:43:56AM +0100, Roger Jorgensen wrote:
> so what sort of consensus are we aiming for, and about what? A new policy
> for AS, a net block, routing policy, multihoming, or just IPv6 in general?
> This entire discussion have been sidetracked alot, not a bad thing either,
> quite alot of topics have been discussed and interesting thoughts brought
> forward.. but what are our goal with all this?
The basic policy issue seems to me:
- who can get a (globally routeable [1]) IPv6 prefix
it might affect the policy "who can get an AS number".
The basic technical issue seems to be:
- is "IPv4-style" BGP multihoming the correct way to do in IPv6
[1] globally routeable in the sense of "the majority of the participants
in the global IPv6 routing system will be able to send packets that way".
Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
--
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 81421
SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0
D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] a consensus, about what?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Crossposting to address policy and ipv6 working group mail lists
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]