[address-policy-wg] IPv6 access to K-root

gert at space.net (Gert Doering) wrote:

> So far, nobody has proposed a 
> 
>  "globally visible v6 to <important end sites>" 
> 
> policy yet.  People are clearly unhappy, and blaiming policies, but are
> not making specific proposals.

Like said - it should have been underway already...


> One could start with the "critical infrastructure" policy from ARIN, but 
> I keep saying that Google is much more critical to the average network 
> user than one specific nameserver out of the NS set of a random ccTLD 
> registry...

Pah! (And yes, you're right)


> still shipping "top of the line" products that can't do more than 
> 256k IPv4 prefixes).

In the forwarding table, not in the BGP table. Or did I understand
that wrongly?


> OTOH, one might see this "IPv6 deployment isn't happening because
> we can't get addresses!!!" as a pretty lame excuse - /48 multihoming 
> has serious problems, but if you really *want* to get started with IPv6,
> it works, for the time being.

... as long as your transit providers know each other, agree not to
filter, and you're happy with the fallback connectivity through the
block owner. We're in a lucky position, not everybody is.

But: I wouldn't dream of trying PI (v4 or v6) for our home location,
     my concern, as you know, is different.

Yours,
	Elmi.

--

"Begehe nur nicht den Fehler, Meinung durch Sachverstand zu substituieren."
                          (PLemken, <bu6o7e$e6v0p$2 at ID-31.news.uni-berlin.de>)

--------------------------------------------------------------[ ELMI-RIPE ]---