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] 2011-02 Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6 PI
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6 PI
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Information Regarding AS paths
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
boggits
boggits at gmail.com
Sat Jul 2 12:28:05 CEST 2011
On 1 July 2011 17:14, Dan Luedtke <danrl.mailinglists at googlemail.com> wrote: > Dear Community, > I can't wait for this change to happen. As I discussed at IPv6 Kongress in > Frankfurt, Germany, there are more than a handful of people wanting that > change. For example, I have an IPv4 PI network and adopted early to IPv6 > using an IPv6 PA network. Okay, that sounds like you have a real reason for the change, can you please explain why (other than end users think they want/need it) ? > Never did, nor will I ever understand why > multihoming is required for an IPv6 PI network but not for an IPv4 PI > network. Given the choice I would quite willingly write a proposal IPv4 PI requires multihoming but that would be a return to deckchair arranging... J -- James Blessing 07989 039 476
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6 PI
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Information Regarding AS paths
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]