[address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Remco van Mook
remco.vanmook at eu.equinix.com
Wed Apr 15 11:11:20 CEST 2009
..or you can file a proposal to change the current policy. You're very obviously trying to solve a problem and I don't disagree that the problem exists; I just don't like the proposed solution. Remco On 15-04-09 11:06, "Bartek Gajda" <gajda at man.poznan.pl> wrote: > Remco van Mook wrote: >> > >> > I'm sorry but that goes back to my previous e-mail - a request for an >> > AS is a request for an AS and I don't see how that should be related >> > in any way to address space. What this achieves is the same level of >> > fragmentation of the IPv6 space, but then in /32 blocks instead of >> > /33, /34 and /35s. I don't see what the wider community gains here. If >> > you need more space, request a larger block. If your issue is that >> > some people filter smaller than /32 announcements then try to solve that. > So what about is the current policy? > You want to give some LIRs additional /32 because: > "According to the IPv6 policy an IPv6 allocation must be announced as > one prefix. Therefore, an organization operating four separate networks > with one /32 IPv6 allocation cannot de-aggregate into for example a /34 > route announcement per network." > And here you are suggesting me to de-agradate my allocation which this > proposal trying to avoid! Doesn't it looks like one can get what he or > she wants but the other "can de-agraaate"?? > > Bartek > >> > It's not like the global IPv6 routing table is going to explode any >> > time soon. >> > >> > Personally I think IPv6 is going to be a runaway success by the time >> > the DFZ hits 10,000 routes - filtering more specifics I can see the >> > reason for, filtering smaller announcements I can not. >> > >> > Remco >> > >> > >> > On 15-04-09 10:46, "Piotr Strzyzewski" <Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl> wrote: >> > >> > On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 10:35:01AM +0200, Remco van Mook wrote: >>> > > >>> > > Hang on a second. This is now devolving into a proposal where you >> > can get a >>> > > separate AS and /32 for every customer your LIR serves and I will >> > definitely >>> > > not support that. I want a pony, too. >> > >> > Correct me if I'm wrong, but allocation's goes to LIRs and not to >> > customers. Moreover, AS'es are owned by clearly distinguished >> > "entities". >> > We could add those two things together and make that like: /32 for >> > every >> > AS owned by LIR (in simplification). >> > >> > Piotr >> > >> > -- >> > gucio -> Piotr Strzyżewski >> > E-mail: Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl >> > >> > >> > >> > This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its >> > associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted >> > with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally >> > privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you >> > have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete >> > this email immediately. Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office: >> > Quadrant House, Floor 6, 17 Thomas More Street, Thomas More Square, >> > London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales No. 6293383. >> > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20090415/2216a29a/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]