finish my RFC before posting

[Daniel Austin MBCS]

Hi,

Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino 2.0 wrote:
> 	it is clear that some people are people who did not finish reading
> 	my RFC3178 - for instance, i have a chapter dedicated to ingress
> 	filtering (chapter 5) but there's a guy who is attacking me on ingress
> 	filtering.
> 
> 	so, for the efficiency of discussion, please do finish reading my
> 	RFC and then post something about it.  ok?  this way i will get more
> 	sleeping time.

We deal with multihoming (in the IPv4 world) customers almost daily, and 
I can tell you right now that *none* of the customers I deal with would 
even consider using IPv6 if this RFC was the method.

They want multihoming, they want more control of their traffic, they 
want more than two transit providers, they want to join IXs without 
having to be a LIR.

When it comes to considering IPv6, they want to mirror the reliability 
and stability and control that they currently have in IPv4.  Many people 
are not in a position to become a LIR, but still want full control over 
multihoming.

If we want people to be encouraged to use IPv6, we have to work with 
them not against them.  Several smaller ISPs that we deal with are of 
the opinion that IPv6 isn't for them as they can't maintain their 
business models, stability and SLAs without the same kind of multihoming 
that they have currently.

So, thanks for the RFC - it's an amusing read and some people might even 
take note of it like all other RFC's but don't get your hopes up.  It's 
likely to be passed over like all other RFCs and people will do what the 
people want.


Thanks,

-- 
Daniel Austin MBCS
Managing Director
Kewlio.net Limited