[85673] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 news
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul Jakma)
Sat Oct 15 11:20:52 2005
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 16:22:49 +0100 (IST)
From: Paul Jakma <paul@clubi.ie>
To: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>
Cc: "Christopher L.Morrow" <christopher.morrow@mci.com>,
nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <CF5BCAE4-7F43-4D28-BC64-ED1C7457F4D5@tony.li>
Mail-Copies-To: paul@hibernia.jakma.org
Mail-Followup-To: paul@hibernia.jakma.org
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005, Tony Li wrote:
> The alternative is a multihoming scheme that does not require a
> prefix per site.
Another alternative is to force-align allocation and topology in some
way /other/ than by "Providers" (geographical allocation in whatever
hierarchy, IX allocation, whatever), such that networks were easily
aggregatable. Lots of objections though (the "providers and geography
don't align" one though is ultimately slightly bogus, because with
non-provider-aligned allocation policies in place it would be in
providers interests to align their peering to match the allocation
policy).
FWIW, my current IPv6 assignment is PI to a degree (where P == my
first hop IPv4 provider), I can change this "first hop IPv4" provider
to any other provider within my country and still retain my IPv6
assignment.
That kind of "PI" at least meets a lot of my needs.
But it will disappear as soon my "first hop" provider offers native
IPv6 - I'll have to give up my more mobile assignment then. I.e. my
IPv6 experience is /better off/ if ISPs in my country do /not/ deploy
IPv6.. ;)
> But that doesn't match the stated requirement of
> 'conventional', 'proven', 'working' [sic], 'feature-complete'.
ACK.
regards,
--
Paul Jakma paul@clubi.ie paul@jakma.org Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
I didn't know he was dead; I thought he was British.
