[address-policy-wg] RE: Question

On Thursday 20 April 2006 15:24, Sascha Lenz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Gert Doering schrieb:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 04:14:47PM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
> >> I wouldn't recommend advertising more specifics to anyone... and
> >> again, I consider that a feature :-)
> >
> > Well, the combination of "no PI", "no working non-PI/BGP-multihoming
> > solution" and "PA+BGP multihoming not working either" is certainly
> > not something that makes currently-multihomed customers want to move to
> > IPv6...
>
> so, let's switch to discussing
>
>    http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-01.html

I would support this policy proposal.

This would be a sound alternative to those that need to be a LIR today but do 
not really have to be a LIR but only require address-space that does not tie 
them with 1 or 2 providers "for life" and gives them the possibility to have 
global multi-homing (so for example, 2 access points to the Net: 1x US, 1x 
Europe and a private global corporate network to provide internal 
connectivity).

Marc van Selm
-- 

                -- This mail is personal --
All statements in this mail are made from my own personal
perspective and do not necessarily reflect my employer's
opinions or policies.