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

Hello!

Turchanyi Geza schrieb am 07.11.2011 10:02:
> nothing stops th IPv4 PI owners to use IPv6 PA....

Nothing stops anybody of using PA, neither in IPv4 nor in v6. That's not 
the question.

But any reasons, why somebody wants/needs IPv4 PI space will usually 
fully apply to IPv6 also. It would seem stupid to me, to have IPv4 ("the 
past") as PI but IPv6 ("the future") as PA. That won't make sense. What 
changed between my v4 PI application and my v6 PI application? If I 
won't need PI on v6 any more, I probably won't need it on v4 any longer.

Siple question: do I need my machines to have provider independend IP 
addresses or not? If yes, then I need _ANY_ address (IPv4, IPv6, 
IPvSomething) to be PI and not PA.

So, if somebody already has IPv4 PI space, he/she should more or less 
automatically receive v6 PI under the same conditions as for v4. He/she 
just has to reason, why some default /48 won't be enough. Thats my opinion.

regards,
Thomas
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20111107/61d5b530/attachment.html>