[address-policy-wg] Proposal for change to the IPv4 PI allocation policy
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Proposal for change to the IPv4 PI allocation policy
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Proposal for change to the IPv4 PI allocation policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Garry Glendown
garry at nethinks.com
Wed Aug 23 17:58:33 CEST 2006
Max Tulyev wrote: > Hi, > > Gert Doering wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 04:54:42PM +0000, Max Tulyev wrote: >>> Another good idea is to remove user scaring story about PI is worse >>> routeable than PA from RIPE documents. >> Well - that won't tell the truth. >> >> PI *is* worse to debug if some targets can't be reached (if only because >> you normally can't run traceroutes from inside customer PI networks). > > But what exactly (versus PA) is worse? Same ping and traceroute, same > bgp debug, so on. There is a possibility of people being tight on memory and filtering something like /24 or /23, and then not being able to reach or be reached by a /24 PI, because they also neglected to have a default route to their uplink ... Apart from that, I have not been informed of any problems with /24 or larger PI networks ... But then, RIPE policies would allow for (or even enforce) PI networks smaller than /24 to be assigned - which will most likely NOT be reachable from the Internet ... -gg
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Proposal for change to the IPv4 PI allocation policy
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Proposal for change to the IPv4 PI allocation policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]