Consensus on MHAP/v6 Multi-homing

[Cameron Gray]

Michael Loftis wrote:
> 
> 
> --On Wednesday, April 20, 2005 5:56 PM +0200 Jeroen Massar 
> <jeroen at unfix.org> wrote:
> 
> 
>> The whole goal of multihoming is being independent of upstream address
>> space isn't it ?
> 
> 
> Speaking from the point of view of a web hosting operator.  Not 
> entirely, no.  We multi-home for redundancy purposes *AND* for PI 
> space.  Without PI space you are locked into keeping one provider, in 
> order to keep your address space and avoid renumbering.  From what I've 
> seen IPv6 still hasn't done anything to really address the renumbering 
> issue, and it will always exist.  There's not much of a way around it.  
> It will always be there. Routing hardware, likewise, has become more 
> powerful and better able to handle larger tables.  However I'm very 
> cheesed off that I have trouble getting a /22, where there are places 
> that do *NOTHING* with a /19.  And some of these are newer allocations 
> even.

Well at least I've proved to myself that I'm not the only one stuck in 
this quagmire.

I've joined in the discussion on address-policy-wg at RIPE, so we'll see 
what happens.

-- 

Best regards,

Cameron Gray
Director, Netegral Limited
www.netegral.co.uk | cgray at netegral.co.uk
0871 277 NTGL (6845)