RE: [GLOBAL-V6] Comments on AP Consensus

To: "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net>
Subject: RE: [GLOBAL-V6] Comments on AP Consensus
From: "Michel Py" <michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 07:50:17 -0700
Cc: "Carlos Friacas" <cfriacas@fccn.pt>, <global-v6@lists.apnic.net>
Sender: owner-global-v6@lists.apnic.net
Thread-index: AcHlH5Bv/XpC6cvRRLqigX36WZOIJAANjazg
Thread-topic: [GLOBAL-V6] Comments on AP Consensus

> Gert Doering wrote:
> What's wrong about doing this?  Or getting a number of
> /48s from a number of upstream providers, and multi-homing
> to those (IPv6 can easily do that)?

Ah, that's a new twist. I'm sure you can point me to a document that describes IPv6 multihoming?

Michel.

-
- This list (global-v6) is handled by majordomo@lists.apnic.net

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [GLOBAL-V6] Comments on AP Consensus
  - From: Gert Doering <gert@Space.Net>

Prev by Date: Re: [GLOBAL-V6] Comments on AP Consensus
Next by Date: Re: [GLOBAL-V6] Comments on AP Consensus
Previous by thread: Re: [GLOBAL-V6] Comments on AP Consensus
Next by thread: Re: [GLOBAL-V6] Comments on AP Consensus
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread