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] Status of 2011-02 Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)?
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Status of 2011-02 Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Status of 2011-02 Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
DI. Thomas Schallar
t.schallar at avalon.at
Mon Aug 8 10:36:03 CEST 2011
> So to everyone on the list, let's hear it.
I also support that proposal!
Reasons for me (my company): we have a small IPv4 PI space and want to
deploy IPv6. Of course it should also be PI and not PA [the same reasony
apply for v6 as for v4]. Our provider has several conections to the
Internet hubs, so our current v4 uplink _IS_ already redundant. The same
will be the case for IPv6.
To have our IPv6 space be explicitly multihomed, we have to
* apply for an AS for proper BGP announcement
* change fom cheap Internet uplink to expensive transit
That will
* unnecessarily burn away the last of the remaining 16 Bit AS
numbers with additional RIPE fees for us
* more than tripple the costs of our Internet connection (simple
uplink is cheap, transit is expensive)
but without gaining any benefit (that I can see).
regards,
Thomas
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Status of 2011-02 Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Status of 2011-02 Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]