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

On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 7:39 PM, Erik Bais <ebais at a2b-internet.com> wrote:
> Having said this, this policy will help us all in the so much required v6
> adoption across the board and it is still possible to propose a change in
> the v6 PI policy if the take-up is moving out of hand.
Exactly.

Btw, the net is already poisoned. It all began with the wide
deployment of NAT-Routers as CPE. This internet currently is not the
"network of all networks", in fact, it hasn't been the past years. We
now have the ability to provide every customer[1] with a network, and
we fail to give them addresses. Seriously? Whats wrong? Again: A PIv4
holder cannot get his hands on a PIv6 if he is not multihomed. This
leads to
a) PIv4 holders not deploying IPv6;
b) PIv4 holders mixing PI and PA space, which requires renumbering if
the provider changes.
Guess what makes more sense in a business-plan to the financial departement?

I cannot believe this discussion is still on... Drop it if you are
unsure, so I can say "told you so" later on. ;)

regards,
 Dan

[1] customer, a: the one who pays my bills.