Daniel, On Tue, 2011-02-15 at 08:48 +0100, Daniel Roesen wrote:
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 03:50:39PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
So ... should we propose to remove the multihoming barrier ?
What is the feeling of the list members ?
+1
On one side, RIPE advocates "we don't care about routing" (IPv4 PI prefix size, see stalled proposal 2006-05 to fix that), on the other side RIPE requests routing policy (multihoming for IPv6 PI). This is arguing with split tongue. You can't have it both ways.
IP address space is not only for use on "the Internet". It's also for private networks or hybrid networks (extranets etc.). Requiring "Internet" multihoming is an artificial limitation not really justified when claiming the role of sole owner of IP addresses in a region.
So yes, get rid of the multihoming requirement.
Speaking only from the IPv6 side, there are several options if you only need IPv6 space for internal reasons: * ULA addresses, with random addresses * 6to4 addresses, using one or more of your IPv4 addresses Perhaps someday we'll see ULA with a central registry too (that is in itself a long-going, bikeshed discussion that makes me very sleepy). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unique_local_address -- Shane