I should have made myself more clear -- the policy amendment would make clear that multihoming requires only one facilities-based connection and that the other connections could be fulfilled via tunnels. This may be heresy for some.
Frank -----Original Message----- From: Antonio Querubin [mailto:t...@lavanauts.org] Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2011 9:27 PM To: Frank Bulk Cc: 'Leigh Porter'; 'Charles N Wyble'; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on building a nationwide network On Sun, 18 Sep 2011, Frank Bulk wrote: > I understand that tunneling meets the letter of the ARIN policy, but > I'll make the bold assumption that wasn't the spirit of the policy when > it was written. Maybe the policy needs to be amended to clarify that. I think this is a bad idea and I suspect would slow IPv6 deployment. Potential latency issues aside, is there a technical (not political) reason for doing so? Antonio Querubin e-mail: t...@lavanauts.org xmpp: antonioqueru...@gmail.com