[address-policy-wg] IPv6 addresses to transit-providers
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 addresses to transit-providers
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 addresses to transit-providers
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jeroen Massar
jeroen at unfix.org
Wed Mar 2 13:36:06 CET 2005
On Wed, 2005-03-02 at 12:05 +0100, Alexander Koch wrote: >On Wed, 2 March 2005 11:32:26 +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote: >[..] >> The question boils down to: >> - do you require a entry in the routing table >> or: >> - do you need address space >> >> Giving a /32 to such a site would be quite some waste, as you will never >> use it. >> A /40 could be appropriate. But do you really need the entry in the >> routing table? > >Cool. Then we as a transit provider have a problem. Well, we >have a handful of customers with /48 and some /64, but that are >not exactly that many... 80% of our v6 customers run BGP with >their /48 or /32... That is indeed a problem for such a setup. But this is a problem with the policy and the thought behind the policy than with your setup :) As such, these cases should be covered in the policy too. But Tiscali already has a very well working IPv6 connectivity and I assume that you also have the _plan_ of providing connectivity for more than 200 customers at some point in the very distant future, so actually it is not a big issue. But it is for some indeed :( Greets, Jeroen -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 240 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20050302/843cc8f2/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 addresses to transit-providers
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 addresses to transit-providers
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]