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

Considering the arguments from both David and Job, I would also like to 
express my support.

With kind regards,
Michiel Klaver


At 06-05-2011 12:40, Job Snijders wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> I agree with removing the multi-homing requirement for IPv6 PI.
>
> Its pretty awkward to send your customers to a competitor because to deploy IPv6 PI space he or she needs to be multi-homed. Also, rising technologies such as LISP allow end-users to be multi-homed in a way that is transparent to the DFZ, so why bother restricting people to BGP multi-homing.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Job Snijders

At 06-05-2011 12:28, David Monosov wrote:
> Dear address-policy-wg,
>
> I would like to express my support for this policy proposal.
>
> The promise of auto-configuration making transitioning between v6 prefixes
> seamless is not yet fully delivered, and eliminating the manual renumbering
> overhead when moving between service providers, as well as having a clear path
> to multihoming ("just add ASN") should assure a lively Internet services market
> for years to come.
>
> --
> Respectfully yours,
>
> David Monosov