IPv6 news

Sat Oct 15 15:22:49 UTC 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'.

ACK.

regards,
-- 
Paul Jakma	paul at clubi.ie	paul at jakma.org	Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
I didn't know he was dead; I thought he was British.