nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 Deployment (Was: Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted)
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet () consulintel es>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 09:16:19 +0200
But now PI is there, no more restrictions in the path, so they can use "traditional" multihoming :-) Regards, Jordi
De: Donald Stahl <don () calis blacksun org> Responder a: <owner-nanog () merit edu> Fecha: Tue, 29 May 2007 20:53:36 -0400 (EDT) Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet () consulintel es> CC: Nanog <nanog () nanog org> Asunto: IPv6 Deployment (Was: Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted)We do have dual stack in all our customer sites, and at the time being didn't got complains or support calls that may be considered due to the AAAA.So far everyone who has contacted me has generally reported a positive experience with their transitions. The biggest complaints so far have come from end users who want to multihome and will be unable to do so under IPv6 due to allocation restrictions. End user sites seem to be of the opinion that they have enough addresses and that IP shortages are the ISP's problem. They don't want to spend money on upgrades only to wind up with a lesser service than they already have- and that's a fair criticism. Does it make sense to allow early adopters to multi-home and "punish" those who delay by making it significantly harder? Would that help? Hurt? Accomplish nothing? Regarding the prefix filters- Do /32 filters make sense given the ISP allocation of /32 or would a /34 filter (for example) make sense to allow for very limited deaggregation (to make moves and transitions easier- or to allow better traffic balances)- or is this just asking for problems? I'm just curious about opinions and by no means trying to start a flame war. -Don
********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
Current thread:
- using v6 specific names, was Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted, (continued)
- using v6 specific names, was Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Edward Lewis (May 29)
- IPv6 services trial michael.dillon (May 29)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted David Conrad (May 29)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted JORDI PALET MARTINEZ (May 29)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted JORDI PALET MARTINEZ (May 29)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Leo Vegoda (May 29)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Iljitsch van Beijnum (May 29)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted JORDI PALET MARTINEZ (May 29)
- Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Nathan Ward (May 29)
- IPv6 Deployment (Was: Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted) Donald Stahl (May 29)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment (Was: Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted) JORDI PALET MARTINEZ (May 30)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment (Was: Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted) Donald Stahl (May 30)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment (Was: Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted) Kevin Loch (May 30)
- Re: IPv6 Deployment (Was: Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted) JORDI PALET MARTINEZ (May 30)
- why same names, was Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Edward Lewis (May 29)
- Re: why same names, was Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted David Conrad (May 29)
- Re: why same names, was Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Edward Lewis (May 29)
- Re: why same names, was Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted David Conrad (May 29)
- Re: why same names, was Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Iljitsch van Beijnum (May 30)
- Re: why same names, was Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted Nathan Ward (May 30)
- RE: why same names, was Re: NANOG 40 agenda posted michael.dillon (May 30)