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] Revised 2006-01 set back to Discussion Phase (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Revised 2006-01 set back to Discussion Phase (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Revised 2006-01 set back to Discussion Phase (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Garry Glendown
garry at nethinks.com
Tue Nov 25 20:45:45 CET 2008
Nick Hilliard wrote: > - while a requirement for multihoming is useful, it should be made clear > during implementation that this is not necessarily a requirement for > multihoming using ASNs and BGP on the public Internet (however we care to > define that term). Private interconnection to third parties is also a > fully legitimate justification for assignment of provider independent > number resources. > Concurred. E.g., IPv6 might not be available from the second provider of a customer yet ... Another "pro": Having customers with operational (and multi-homed-able) IPv6 might increase pressure on those other ISPs that still haven't put IPv6 into productive operation ... -garry
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Revised 2006-01 set back to Discussion Phase (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Revised 2006-01 set back to Discussion Phase (Provider Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End User Organisations)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]