[address-policy-wg] Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6

Hi,

On Fri, May 06, 2011 at 03:24:55PM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Fri, 6 May 2011, ABS EMEA NIC - IPA Support AT&T wrote:
> 
> > Why do you think: "50 EUR PI with no technical requirements for 
> > multihoming or other is a recipe for longterm disaster in my book." ? 50 
> > Eur works today for IPv4 PI space as well.
> 
> As far as I know there is still multihoming requirement for IPv4 PI.

No.  Never was.

  http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-509#----pa-vs--pi-address-space

The IPv6 PI policy that we currently have is significantly more restrictive
than the IPv4 PI policy, specifically because the working group at that
time decided that we don't know whether the routing table will explode.

We still don't know, but given that IPv4 PI is much less restrictive, 
IPv4 PI is only contributing 21% of the BGP routes in the RIPE region,
and the restrictive IPv6 PI policy is holding up deployment plans, people
are asking to get this changed.

Gert Doering
        -- APWG chair
-- 
did you enable IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279