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