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 ]
Jasper Jans
Jasper.Jans at espritxb.nl
Mon Aug 8 11:39:32 CEST 2011
This is in 95% of the cases also how we run things. >> 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. Op dit e-mailbericht is een disclaimer van toepassing, welke te vinden is op http://www.espritxb.nl/disclaimer
- 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 ]