[CUWiN-Dev] IPv6 -- TAKE II: NEED ANSWER BY TUESDAY NOON...

[Sascha Meinrath]

>> Frannie and I are working on getting the /32 paid for by another 
>> institution (the Public Interest Registry -- www.pir.org) -- ideally, 
>> they would be a partner in this endeavor.  I'm certain that there are 
>> more ideal solutions than a /32 (and am interested in hearing what 
>> they'd be); but I'm also unclear if folks are saying that this is 
>> something we _shouldn't_ move forward on, or whether it's more of a "we 
>> should do this, but we're not done yet" sort of analysis.
>
> I am saying a /32 doesn't solve the problems you mention (multihoming, 
> address duplication).  I do not think you should ask for numbers to be 
> assigned by ARIN.  Numbers will come from our ISPs.

If numbers need to be assigned by the ISPs -- doesn't that defeat the 
purpose of having an ad-hoc network?  I'm trying to figure out how we've 
gone from IPv6 numbers being a good idea to get (and a debate over how 
many we should ask for) to your statement that we shouldn't ge trying to 
get IPv6 numbers.  I'm also trying to figure out why so many different 
groups from the National Summit for Community Wireless Networks wanted 
IPv6 numbers if they're _not_ a good idea.  Could you provide some more 
information on this?

--Sascha

-- 
Sascha Meinrath
President                 *   Project Coordinator   *   Policy Analyst
Acorn Active Media       ***  CU Wireless Network  ***  Free Press
www.acornactivemedia.com  *   www.cuwireless.net    *   www.freepress.net