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 ]
Paul Hoogsteder
paul at meanie.nl
Mon Aug 8 11:06:54 CEST 2011
> On 8/8/11 10:36 AM, DI. Thomas Schallar wrote: >> 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 does not change with removing the multihoming requirement. PI is > still PI and you need to announce it via BGP and your ASN. Why? We (as a multihomed ISP) announce both our own PA blocks and one of our customers PI block in v4 - why wouldn't that work/be allowed in v6? There's no need for an ASN or BGP capable router at the customer. Paul.
- 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 ]