[address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] article about IPv6 vs firewalls vs NAT in arstechnica (seen on slashdot)

Hi,

On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 05:42:47PM -0700, Tony Hain wrote:
> PI will exist in whatever form it has to. If that means punching holes in PA
> space, then it will be that. Rather than trying to prevent the unpreventable
> through a disassociated policy, grab it and manage it. Create PI that is
> managed. If that exists in an easy to get form, the ULA-C discussion is moot
> because it will cost more to convince an ISP to route it than to just get
> recognized PI space.

Thanks for these thoughts.

Wearing the APWG chair hat, I encourage people to think through this,
in the light of the open policy proposals (for IPv6 PI, and for ULA-Central),
and give us their feedback accordingly.

Gert Doering
        -- APWG chair
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  113403

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 305 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20070515/cc1c23d4/attachment.sig>