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] Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Per Heldal
heldal at eml.cc
Mon Jan 16 17:46:22 CET 2006
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:26:50 +0000, "Tim Streater" > Notwithstanding this, there is some pressure in the research community > for v6 to be available. And this translates downwards, at least for me, > into a requirement to get some PI v6 space for a transit network. Your organisation shouldn't have a problem getting adsress-space It is in everyone's best interest to get as many people as possible from the research community involved. > > IPv6 is supposed to be an available and operational service, really? > in which > case the policy should cover all reasonable requirements. If it is not > the case (i.e., not an operational or available service), but is still > considered to be under development, not yet needed to be deployed, might > need to be changed to introduce geographical addressing, or whatever > else, then presumably this needs to be made evident and debated in a > different forum. I don't disagree, but: * The current policy will work just fine combined with a production-quality shim6 implementation, complete with full support for traffic-engineering and load-balancing from all vendors. I believe that still is a few years down the road. * Current policies and current v6 technology does not meet requirements from important groups like content providers wrt multi-homing and provider-independence. V6 could make a great p2p network if v6 can help eliminate NAT though ;) To me this mean there's a conflict here. Not only do people disagree wrt how things should be done, but also about what they want to achieve. //per -- Per Heldal http://heldal.eml.cc/
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]