[ppml] Get you IPv6 Today, lets update the policy

[Klement, Charles]

-----Original Message-----
From: Shane Kerr [mailto:shane at time-travellers.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 3:38 AM
To: Klement, Charles
Cc: ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [ppml] Get you IPv6 Today, lets update the policy

<SNIP>
.
.
.
<SNIP>
>As far as I know, you have exactly the same multihoming solution
>available now as you do with IPv4 - advertise a more specific route.
>Since AFAIK IPv6 folks don't filter heavily on prefix length, this
>should give you multihoming today as good as with IPv4.

My understanding, is that this is not possible under v6.  One of the goals
of v6 is to maintain a tight hierarchy in the routing tables.  This means
that you can't send specifics to one provider or another.  You can only use
the address space that you are assigned from your provider with that
provider.

If they would open this up and allow a "swamp" then this would allow me to
purchase transit from multiple peers. With PI address space, I don't have to
worry (as much) about when the next ISP will go out of business.  Perhaps my
worries are bound up in my experience with v4.  I definitely will go dig out
the v6 RFCs

>
>Yes, it's a suckful situation, but no worse than current practice.
>
>> Is there some loophole where I can qualify as a LIR and "sell" service
>> to my remote sites?
>
>I'm not sure what exactly is meant by this.... ???

I'm referring to the fact that although I represent thousands of users
across many locations, I do not qualify as an ISP (LIR) because I don't
actually sell service to anyone. 

-charles