IPV6 route registries

[Matthew Huff]

> Now, for solving all kinds of other obstacles that come along with
> multihoming there are also a variety of other solutions, all which get
> discarded by people because what they know is this BGP-based
> multihoming
> and thus that is all they want...
>

Or they have looked at so called other multihoming solutions found them incomplete or laughable. The ivory tower idea that a corporate entity would be able to globally renumber their prefixes every time some PHB switches providers is again laughable.


----
Matthew Huff             | 1 Manhattanville Rd
Director of Operations   | Purchase, NY 10577
OTA Management LLC       | Phone: 914-460-4039
aim: matthewbhuff        | Fax:   914-460-4139

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6-ops-bounces+mhuff=ox.com at lists.cluenet.de [mailto:ipv6-ops-
> bounces+mhuff=ox.com at lists.cluenet.de] On Behalf Of Jeroen Massar
> Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 7:17 AM
> To: Phil Mayers
> Cc: ipv6-ops at lists.cluenet.de
> Subject: Re: IPV6 route registries
> 
> On 2011-09-14 13:05 , Phil Mayers wrote:
> > On 13/09/11 18:04, David Conrad wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Sep 13, 2011, at 9:24 AM, Matthew Huff wrote:
> >>> This is PI space for BGP multihoming which we got from ARIN.
> Running
> >>> with PA space never was an option.
> >>
> >> Out of curiosity, why wasn't PA an option?
> >
> > Because he wanted to do BGP multihoming to two different providers, I
> > guess.
> >
> > It's a real shame some clever mechanism to do that wasn't found
> *before*
> > we all started our rollouts / IPv4 ran out
> 
> For BGP Multihoming there is a solution, it is called BGP multihoming.
> 
> 
> Now, for solving all kinds of other obstacles that come along with
> multihoming there are also a variety of other solutions, all which get
> discarded by people because what they know is this BGP-based
> multihoming
> and thus that is all they want...
> 
> Greets,
>  Jeroen