RE: IPv6 policy at LACNIC( was: RE: IPv6 Policy Proposal for LACNIC Region
"Michel Py" <michel-nyboWHt8SIrJRljzj3WzodHdOEOI8IWic20RSKp2L0g@public.gmane.org>
| Newsgroups | gmane.org.apnic.global-v6 |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <DD7FE473A8C3C245ADA2A2FE1709D90B06C808@server2003.arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us> |
> Thomas Narten wrote: > Thus, it is technically feasible to all longer > prefixes be advertised for (say) multihoming > support. But this is not a full solution, > because there is no guarantee that such > prefixes will be accepted everywhere. Which is precisely why multihomers are not implementing IPv6, as one of the goals of multihoming is to provide bullet-proof connectivity. Michel. _______________________________________________ global-v6 mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6