[ipv6-wg] Re: IPv6 PI

lea.roberts at stanford.edu (Lea Roberts) wrote:

> this was the original ARIN proposal 2005-1, which could not reach
> consensus.  The last time around it was re-worked to add more restrictions
> and again failed because other folks felt it was too restrictive.  There
> are actually two issues:
> 
> 1) the high cost of renumbering in a large organization

Why should they renumber, if it's their own block?


> 2) multi-homing for network reliability and resiliency

Where's the problem here? Someone who can afford and establish
a case for _real_ multihoming can get an ASN and thus an assignment.

Like was already said - loosening the ASN handout rules needs changes
in assignment rules, too. But that's for years to come.

Yours,
	Elmi.

--

"Begehe nur nicht den Fehler, Meinung durch Sachverstand zu substituieren."
                          (PLemken, <bu6o7e$e6v0p$2 at ID-31.news.uni-berlin.de>)

--------------------------------------------------------------[ ELMI-RIPE ]---