[address-policy-wg] Status of 2011-02 Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)?
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Status of 2011-02 Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Status of 2011-02 Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
DI. Thomas Schallar
t.schallar at avalon.at
Mon Aug 8 10:36:03 CEST 2011
> So to everyone on the list, let's hear it. I also support that proposal! Reasons for me (my company): we have a small IPv4 PI space and want to deploy IPv6. Of course it should also be PI and not PA [the same reasony apply for v6 as for v4]. Our provider has several conections to the Internet hubs, so our current v4 uplink _IS_ already redundant. The same will be the case for IPv6. To have our IPv6 space be explicitly multihomed, we have to * apply for an AS for proper BGP announcement * change fom cheap Internet uplink to expensive transit That will * unnecessarily burn away the last of the remaining 16 Bit AS numbers with additional RIPE fees for us * more than tripple the costs of our Internet connection (simple uplink is cheap, transit is expensive) but without gaining any benefit (that I can see). regards, Thomas
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Status of 2011-02 Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)?
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Status of 2011-02 Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]