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/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI resource question!
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI resource question!
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI resource question!
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sergey Myasoedov
sergey at devnull.ru
Mon Feb 14 17:12:46 CET 2011
Hello, Monday, February 14, 2011, 4:24:05 PM, you wrote: >> So ... should we propose to remove the multihoming barrier ? >> What is the feeling of the list members ? SS> The last time we discussed this the feeling seemed to be that such a SS> limitation was necessary to prevent an explosion of the IPv6 routing SS> table. On the other hand we want people to start using IPv6. I am really SS> curious what the rest of the list thinks about this. I think that current IPv6 assignment policy delays IPv6 implementation. ISPs can assign addresses using point-to-point protocols or even give /64 from the PI /48 assignment or use whole /48 for own infrastructure - you'll never know this exactly. As for me, an additional barrier for migration to IPv6 should be removed. -- Sergey
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI resource question!
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI resource question!
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]