[address-policy-wg] RE: Question

Hi,

Gert Doering schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 04:14:47PM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
>> I wouldn't recommend advertising more specifics to anyone... and 
>> again, I consider that a feature :-)
> 
> Well, the combination of "no PI", "no working non-PI/BGP-multihoming
> solution" and "PA+BGP multihoming not working either" is certainly
> not something that makes currently-multihomed customers want to move to
> IPv6...

so, let's switch to discussing

   http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-01.html

:-)

P.S.: The question is, if any Prefix longer than /32 makes any sense at 
all after years of propagating "/32 and shorter only!!!" - you can't 
force anyone to undo his filter descisions, let alone fix orphaned IPv6 
setups (similar to the good old IPv4-IANA-reserverd-space-filter 
problematic).

-- 
========================================================================
= Sascha Lenz                  SLZ-RIPE          slz at baycix.de         =
= Network Operations                                                   =
= BayCIX GmbH, Landshut                  * PGP public Key on demand *  =
========================================================================