Re: [sig-policy] Is the multihoming requirement necessary for IPv6 porta
cases. At this stage is just pending of being implemented by RIPE NCC.
Regards,
Jordi
-----Mensaje original-----
De: <aanesi at bluesky dot as>
Responder a: <aanesi at bluesky dot as>
Fecha: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 13:46:52 -1100
Para: David Woodgate <dwoodgate5 at gmail dot com>
CC: <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
Asunto: Re: [sig-policy] Is the multihoming requirement necessary for IPv6
portable assignments?
>HI David,
>This is actually a valid concern especially for Pacific Island nations.
>In American Samoa, we operated for several years before becoming
>multihomed. So, while we would qualify now, smaller providers who are
>just starting out or who only have a single link to their upstream would
>be left out.
>
>-------------------------------------------------------
>Alalatoa Aloiamoa Anesi, Jr.
>Systems Engineer
>Blue Sky Communications
>478 Laufou Shopping Ctr
>Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799
>--
>Ph: +1.684.699.2759 ext 1098
>Cell: +1.684.258.1098Skype: aloanesijr
>
>
>
>On Jan 18, 2012, at 1:41 PM, David Woodgate wrote:
>
>
>
>I would like to canvass the opinion of this list as to whether the
>current multihoming requirement for portable IPv6 assignments is
>truly necessary, or whether it could be removed from APNIC's IPv6
>allocation policy.
>
>That is, should IPv6 portable addresses be made available to anyone
>upon request (with appropriate justifications and fees), without the
>requirement to be multihomed?
>
>At the moment, the only option for IPv6 addressing of a singly-homed
>network is assignment from their ISP (as an LIR). This of course
>should be fine for dynamically-assigned networks, or networks small
>enough to renumber, but it will pose significant challenges for large
>to very large statically-configured networks if they wish to change
>ISP, since that implies by current practice and paradigms that the
>customer will need to renumber their entire network to a new address
>space assigned by the new ISP.
>
>This issue can easily be removed, simply by making portable addresses
>readily available to any company, and the only apparent policy change
>required would be to remove the current multihoming requirement (i.e.
>changing section 5.9.1 of the current "IPv6 address allocation and
>assignment policy"). I believe that APNIC's standard fees and other
>assignment criteria would naturally stop requests from any companies
>other than those who really needed this for genuine business purposes
>anyway (since who is going to pay AU$4,175 or more for a /48 if they
>don't have to?), so I don't believe such a change would risk an
>explosion of the routing table or an excessive consumption of IPv6
>resources.
>
>There otherwise does not seem to be any obvious value in retaining
>the multihoming requirement; so while it may be likely that many
>networks of that scale would be multihomed anyway, it does not seem
>necessary to demand it - therefore I suggest it should be removed as
>an unnecessary limitation, as in some circumstances it could hinder
>or add complexity to the aim of general IPv6 deployment.
>
>I'm eager to hear any thoughts about this idea from the members of
>this list, and I would be interested in working with someone to
>co-author a policy proposal.
>
> David Woodgate
>
>* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
> *
>_______________________________________________
>sig-policy mailing list
>sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
>http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
> *
>_______________________________________________
>sig-policy mailing list
>sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
>http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.