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/
[address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #alpha: TLD Anycast Allocation Policy
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #alpha: TLD Anycast Allocation Policy
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #alpha: TLD Anycast Allocation Policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Daniel Roesen
dr at cluenet.de
Thu Mar 31 00:44:35 CEST 2005
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 09:30:38PM +0200, Hans Petter Holen wrote: > >>PI will come or IPv6 not fly. Face it. > > I agree that IPv6 needs multi-homing to fly - but I was hoping there > would be other technical implementations of multi-homing than PI. > I do however undersand how multi-homing works with PI addresses - I am > not shure I can say the same of other proposals. http://www.6net.org/publications/deliverables/D4.5.3.pdf Interesting reading, especially the nice table on page 31. All proposals on the table fall short. None can provide all the benefits of true multihoming. Regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #alpha: TLD Anycast Allocation Policy
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #alpha: TLD Anycast Allocation Policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]