RE: IPv6 Allocation Policy

"Michel Py" <michel-nyboWHt8SIrJRljzj3WzodHdOEOI8IWic20RSKp2L0g@public.gmane.org>
Newsgroups gmane.org.apnic.global-v6
Message-ID <963621801C6D3E4A9CF454A1972AE8F504F810@server2000.arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>
David / Tim,


> David Kessens wrote:
> Having said this, this list is about establishing policies.
> And although the registries cannot get involved on how networks
> are actually being operated, it would be stupid to ignore the
> operational reality and technical limitations of the current
> routing system.

Let's not confuse establishing policies and trying to find a
quick-and-dirty fix to the temporary lack of a multihoming solution.
Allowing to punch holes in PA space and allow the routing of prefixes
all the way down to a /52 has long-term negative effects and that's
precisely why it won't work because there are enough people out there
that understand that it's not a solution and that will continue
filtering.


> Tim Chown wrote:
> The academic networks are trying to get a strict(ish) policy
> running to make research IPv6 networking stable, reliable and
> predictable enough for day to day use.

Agree. I was in a Canada/US NREN meeting two weeks ago and I was struck
by the willingness of these people to be good netizens. NRENs have the
closest thing there is to a real, native, high-speed IPv6 backbone (I
would not mind if it could carry commercial traffic) and as long as
large ISPs follows the same practice the operational reality is that
there _is_ filtering.


Michel.


_______________________________________________
global-v6 mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/global-v6
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.