Re: Provider-Aggregated vs Provider-Independent IPv6 addressing

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 09 November 2010 01:09 UTC

DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=XL9WK2e+/7Dxs/H0aoYt0OwWbc4DjqUKMGUczV+Ik3NwHDSr8ij9022lVZsc3DiINB f7VYF96oHW5noeCUaO3Fqjl0qbZq2x5SLTYZdQOHTzBH3yT3Vsbwbj+1BtPVlknfUXph S64ivR+fqlyRncRAusNqSq52QYEMm1rbBKaSk=
Message-ID: <4CD89F48.1050401@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 14:09:28 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
Subject: Re: Provider-Aggregated vs Provider-Independent IPv6 addressing
References: <20101108022649.BD7E03A694D@core3.amsl.com> <050D54E9-B996-4C70-85DC-5CB9A34D2464@Isode.COM> <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65C59D3ED91@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
In-Reply-To: <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65C59D3ED91@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Precedence: list

On 2010-11-09 13:54, Templin, Fred L wrote:
> During the IPv6 panel at the plenary last night, representatives
> of several major service providers discussed their experiences
> with IPv6. It became clear that many of their experiments involve technologies that delegate Provider-Aggregated (PA) IPv6 prefixes
> to the customer instead of Provider-Independent (PI) ones. This
> fact did not seem to be at the forefront of the service providers'
> use case considerations, and perhaps needs to be brought to a
> level of awareness in the community.
> 
> Many years ago, there was an extended debate on this list regarding
> PA vs. PI. Emotions ran high, and in the end there seemed to be
> a consensus favoring PI. Have we forgotten about that? Is it time
> to re-open the debate?

Not on this list, please.

   Brian

Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment The IESG
Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Richard L. Barnes
Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Dave CROCKER
Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Scott Brim
Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Brian E Carpenter
Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Aaron Falk
Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Geoff Mulligan
Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Phillip Hallam-Baker
Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Barry Leiba
Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Henk Uijterwaal
RE: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment gregory.cauchie
Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Michael Richardson
RE: BOF Attendance Minimization Bernard Aboba
Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Russ Housley
Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Pete Resnick
Re: BOF Attendance Minimization Dave CROCKER
Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Andrew Sullivan
Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Spencer Dawkins
RE: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Worley, Dale R (Dale)
RE: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Ross Callon
Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Kurt Zeilenga
Provider-Aggregated vs Provider-Independent IPv6 … Templin, Fred L
Re: Provider-Aggregated vs Provider-Independent I… Brian E Carpenter
Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Geoff Mulligan
RE: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment David Harrington
Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Andrew G. Malis
Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Scott Brim
RE: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Worley, Dale R (Dale)
Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment Eric Burger