<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 1:05 PM, John Payne <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:john@sackheads.org">john@sackheads.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im"><br>
On Mar 31, 2009, at 3:09 AM, Fred Baker wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
The alternatives are fine for "someone else", but ask anyone, and they want their PI. Give them that, and the IPv6 route table very quickly mirrors the IPv4 route table for complexity.<br>
<br>
And hence I raise my question. There are a number of alternatives on the table today that give one both multihoming and ISP independence. Who has given them five minutes though before rejecting them out of hand?<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
What alternative gives you multi-homing and leaves the traffic engineering[*] in the hands of the network team and not the end-users or server folk?</blockquote><div><br>None.. quite frankly I'm not clear why we're pushing v6 policy to try to make it hard to get PI space. Lets stick to the v4 style policy where anyone with BGP and an ASN can get address space and gives them a v6 /32 and we'll make this transition much easier.<br>
<br>Steve<br><br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>
<br>
<br>
[*] even if that's "primary/backup" rather than anything more complex... but people will want to try to get to 60/40 or 50/50 for political or cost reasons<br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Network Operations - Standards & Design<br>Google Inc.<br>E: <a href="mailto:stevewilcox@google.com">stevewilcox@google.com</a><br>M: +44 7920 041930<br>