North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: IPv6 news

  • From: Paul Jakma
  • Date: Sat Oct 15 11:22:15 2005

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'.

Paul Jakma	[email protected]	[email protected]	Key ID: 64A2FF6A
I didn't know he was dead; I thought he was British.