[address-policy-wg] Re: IPv6 PI resource question!

Daniel,

On Tue, 2011-02-15 at 08:48 +0100, Daniel Roesen wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 03:50:39PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> > So ... should we propose to remove the multihoming barrier ?
> > 
> > What is the feeling of the list members ?
> 
> +1
> 
> On one side, RIPE advocates "we don't care about routing" (IPv4 PI
> prefix size, see stalled proposal 2006-05 to fix that), on the other
> side RIPE requests routing policy (multihoming for IPv6 PI). This
> is arguing with split tongue. You can't have it both ways.
> 
> IP address space is not only for use on "the Internet". It's also for
> private networks or hybrid networks (extranets etc.). Requiring
> "Internet" multihoming is an artificial limitation not really justified
> when claiming the role of sole owner of IP addresses in a region.
> 
> So yes, get rid of the multihoming requirement.

Speaking only from the IPv6 side, there are several options if you only
need IPv6 space for internal reasons:

      * ULA addresses, with random addresses
      * 6to4 addresses, using one or more of your IPv4 addresses

Perhaps someday we'll see ULA with a central registry too (that is in
itself a long-going, bikeshed discussion that makes me very sleepy).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unique_local_address

--
Shane