[address-policy-wg] Status of 2011-02 Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)?

Dear All,

I agree with removing the multi-homing requirement for IPv6 PI.

Its pretty awkward to send your customers to a competitor because to deploy IPv6 PI space he or she needs to be multi-homed. Also, rising technologies such as LISP allow end-users to be multi-homed in a way that is transparent to the DFZ, so why bother restricting people to BGP multi-homing. 

Kind regards,

Job Snijders

On 6 aug. 2011, at 12:42, Erik Bais wrote:

> Hi Thomas, 
> 
> A quick update on the status of 2011-02 policy. 
> 
> I spoke with the AP-WG-chair last week and the decision is that there will
> be an extended review period to give people the time to ask questions if
> needed on the proposal. 
> 
> So to everyone on the list, let's hear it.
> 
> I've done a presentation on RIPE62 on the proposal for those not familiar
> with 2011-02 and you can find the PPT here : 
> http://ripe62.ripe.net/presentations/171-2011-02_ripe62.ppt  
> 
> You can read the policy proposal itself here:
> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-02 
> 
> In short, the policy proposal is to remove the multi-homing requirement for
> PI IPv6. 
> Currently, companies can become a LIR and get IPv6, with no multi-home
> requirement, same with requesting IPv4 PI. 
> And companies that don't want to or (legally) can't become a LIR but do want
> to have their own IPv6 addresses are required to be multi-homed. 
> 
> The only change in text in the RIPE-512 is: 
> 
> Remove the line: 
> 
> a) demonstrate that it will be multihomed 
> 
> For those that agree with the policy and everything is clear, express your
> support on the AP-WG-mailing list your support. 
> 
> Kind regards,
> Erik Bais
> Co-author of 2011-02
>