Marcelo, The TLA/NLA rules are obsolete, as the RIRs are managing the space without the TLA/NLA designations. See draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-07.txt as a replacement for RFC 2374.
The multi-6 working group is tasked with addressing appropriate multi-homing mechanisms. While the requirements are still being worked out, I have 2 drafts that discuss a possible approach and the policy issues involved. See draft-hain-ipv6-pi-addr-01.txt & draft-hain-ipv6-pi-addr-use-01.txt. Tony > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of marcelo bagnulo > Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 11:11 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: About RFC 1887 > > > RFC 1887 states: > "4.3.2 Indirect Providers (Backbones) > > > There does not at present appear to be a strong case for direct > providers to take their address spaces from the the IPv6 > space of an > indirect provider (e.g., backbone). The benefit in routing data > abstraction is relatively small. The number of direct > providers today > is in the tens and an order of magnitude increase would > not cause an > undue burden on the backbones. Also, it may be expected > that as time > goes by there will be increased direct interconnection of > the direct > providers, leaf routing domains directly attached to the backbones, > and international links directly attached to the providers. Under > these circumstances, the distinction between direct and indirect > providers may become blurred. > > An additional factor that discourages allocation of IPv6 addresses > from a backbone prefix is that the backbones and their attached > providers are perceived as being independent. Providers may take > their long-haul service from one or more backbones, or may switch > backbones should a more cost-effective service be provided > elsewhere. > Having IPv6 addresses derived from a backbone is inconsistent with > the nature of the relationship." > > Is this coherent with TLA and NLA asignment rules presented > in RFC 2450 and > with RFC 2374? > > Also, RFC 1887 proposes a multi-homing solution (solution 1) based on > > " One possible solution is for each multi-homed organization > to obtain > its IPv6 address space independently of the providers to > which it is > attached" > > Is this solution compatible with RFC 2450 and RFC 2374? > > Regards, marcelo > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List > IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng > FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng > Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
