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

On 6 August 2011 11:42, Erik Bais <ebais at a2b-internet.com> wrote:
> 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.

I'm still of the opinion that removing the dual homing requirement for
PI is a mistake.

Having done some work on renumbering on IPv6, its much easier than v4
(assuming that you design the addressing to be portable) and not the
barrier that people believe that it is with v4.

Please feel free to correct my thinking but PA space is for LIRs to
give to customers for their use, PI space is for those customers who
require a separate block because they need to be 'independent' of
their LIR. The only time this is required (afaict) is when the block
*needs* to be routed by a third party for resilience and therefore
needs to be multi-homed.

By removing that requirement we are 'encouraging' the requisition of
additional resources where non is required and increasing the size of
the routing table unnecessarily.

If there is another problem we are trying to solve (as in PI space not
being suitable for sub-allocation) then we are trying to solve it the
wrong way...

J
-- 

James Blessing
07989 039 476