Re: [GLOBAL-V6] Comments on AP Consensus

[Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>]

"Michel Py" <michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us> writes:

> > Carlos Friacas wrote:
> > These two "rules" imply that Provider Independent networks
> > shall not exist ???
> > IMHO, this is a good thing!

> IMHO, this is a mistake. What do large (non-ISP) companies want?
> 1. Their own address space (because they don't want to be held hostage
> by an operator).

This is not scalable. Hence, doing so would potentially create a huge mess.

> 2. Multihoming.

One doesn't need portable addresses to achieve multihoming. One can
obtain a prefix from an upstream, and advertise that prefix to other
ISPs and maybe even the DFZ. The details of that are outside the scope
of RIR policies.

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