IPv6 PI allocation

[Mohacsi Janos]

On Thu, 17 May 2007, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino 2.0 wrote:

>>
>> We do not have an alternative to PI6 assignment at the moment, and other
>> than the proposed shim6 - which a large number of people have serious
>> problems with (me included) - there are no alternatives on the horizon.
> (snip)
>> I'd also like to see a good alternative to pi6 space.  But we don't have one.
>
> 	hmm.  i have an RFC on it (RFC3178, Oct 2001), which uses two
> 	provider-aggregatable prefixes from two separate ISPs for multi-homing.
> 	with IPv6, it is a common practice for router(s) announcing multiple
> 	prefixes, right?
> 	i hoped that RFC3178 would stop PI allocations, but at that time people
> 	just did not get it.  i was lucky enough that the document made it
> 	to informational RFC level.

I read few year ago RFC 3178 when wanted sudy the different multihoming 
approach. I found RFC3178 as an elegent and straightforward way to solve 
some multihoming problems. 
Regards,

Janos Mohacsi
Network Engineer, Research Associate, Head of Network Planning and Projects
NIIF/HUNGARNET, HUNGARY
Key 70EF9882: DEC2 C685 1ED4 C95A 145F  4300 6F64 7B00 70EF 9882