RE: [GLOBAL-V6] Comments on AP Consensus

[John L Crain <crain@icann.org>]

At 11:15 AM 4/16/2002 -0700, Michel Py wrote:
>[consolidated multiple posts]
>
> > Xavier Henner wrote:
> > IMHO, there's no real problem for very large compagny.
> > Cisco and other multinationnal compagnies have the size (in number
> > of end-users site) of a little ISP.
> > The main problem is for little and medium organizations which are
> > IPv4 multihomed.
>
>Agree. Because these are a large part of the market and if ipv6 does not 
>provide what they currently have in v4 they'll never make the move.
>
>
> > Imaging a hosting compagny. 2 upstreams, an ASN, a /21 (IPv4),
> > which is aggregated in only one upstream's routing table.
> > This is possible in IPv4. Tomorrow, IPv6.
> > The same organization don't need more than a /48.
> > So what ? We give a sTLA ?
>
>Have a look at [MHAP]
>http://arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us/ipv6mh/draft-py-mhap-01a.txt
>
>We should not be using "sTLA" anymore, should we?

I couldn't find this amongst the Internet Drafts. I searched the rfc-editor 
site and the ietf site?

Is this being discussed in a working group?

John




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