Re: IPv6 news

[Tony Li]

> I don't want to speak for Daniel, nor other operators really, but a
> solution that doesn't allow an operator to traffic engineer  
> internally or
> externally is just not workable. For the same reasons quoted in  
> your other
> messages to me: "Increased reliance on the Internet"

There's nothing in any multi-prefix multihoming solution that  
prevents an operator from internal or external traffic engineering.   
There just isn't a single explicit prefix to manipulate.  If, within  
any given routing domain, you choose to carry a longer prefix and  
manipulate it to whatever extent your vendor's BGP permits, you and  
your consenting adult peers are free to do so.  Do not, however,  
expect the rest of us to carry your traffic engineering prefixes.  We  
are not interested.


> agreed, but it doesn't seem that, until recently atleast, there was  
> much
> operator participation. Hopefully that's changing for the better :)

Hopefully, that will reach a point where the operators show up and  
participate at IETF, rather than the IETF coming to NANOG.

Tony