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:tony@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: tony@lavanauts.org xmpp: antonioquerubin@gmail.com