Re: [sig-policy] A second policy proposal for the Policy SIG

To: Randy Bush <randy at psg dot com>, sig-policy at apnic dot net
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] A second policy proposal for the Policy SIG
From: TOYAMA Katsuyasu <toyama.katsuyasu at lab.ntt dot co dot jp>
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 20:47:07 +0900
Cc:
In-reply-to: <17536.29283.942042.181524 at roam dot psg dot com>
List-archive: <http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy>
List-help: <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
List-post: <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <E1Fm3Tn-0002YV-00@alum.sinica.edu> <44802F75.4050503@lab.ntt.co.jp> <17536.29283.942042.181524@roam.psg.com>
User-agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (Windows/20060516)

I hope end sites which really need multihome could 
start to use IPv6 earlier.

Randy Bush wrote:
> toyama-san,
> 
>> (1) the target of portable assignment is limited only to end sites
>>     which are multihomed or plan to be multihomed, while Jordi does
>>     not restrict the target.
>> ...
>> (2) assignment size is same as the size of non-portable assignment, /48,
>>     while Jordi's proposal is /32.
> 
> this actually makes sense from at least this operator's point
> of view.  it solves a real problem and scales as well or better
> than any other approach, with no extra pollution.
> 
> thank you.
> 
> randy
> 
> 
> 


-- 
TOYAMA, Katsuyasu  <toyama.katsuyasu at lab.ntt dot co dot jp>
IP Technology Expert Team, NTT PF-Labs.
Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corp.
TEL: +81-(0)422-59-7906  FAX: +81-(0)422-59-5652