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

On 8/8/11 11:06 AM, Paul Hoogsteder wrote:
>> 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.

True. Not very "clean" way, but definitely possible. It would be nice to 
have some data on "how common" is this way of announcing PI space. 
Probably we could find out how many PI allocations don't have their own ASN.

Cheers, Jan