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]/

[ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6

Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] De-aggregation of assigned IPv6 prefixes?
Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Iljitsch van Beijnum iljitsch at muada.com
Tue Dec 6 14:55:47 CET 2005

My apologies for replying to such an old message, but I couldn't let  
this one go.

On 18-nov-2005, at 12:33, Sascha Lenz wrote:

> In particular, noone came up with an equal solution to BGP Multihoming
> with "PI"-space, which i hoped for back then.

Well, you haven't been paying attention, because I've presented  
"provider-internal aggregation based on geography" at two different  
RIPE meetings a while ago.

The only thing I got was perplexed stares.

You really can't expect to keep doing the same thing we've been doing  
in IPv4 in IPv6 but now with different results (= more reasonable  
routing tables).

Iljitsch

-- 
I've written another book! http://www.runningipv6.net/

Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] De-aggregation of assigned IPv6 prefixes?
Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

[ ipv6-wg Archives ]