[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 ]
Andy Davidson
andy at nosignal.org
Wed Apr 15 12:04:27 CEST 2009
On 15 Apr 2009, at 10:57, Jerzy Pawlus wrote: > *Andy, > >>> Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs >> >> I do not support this proposal. If an org (LIR or not) needs a >> separate address block for routing reasons, then this should be >> catered for through the PI policy. >> >> PA should be aggregatable. There's a clue in the name. ;-) >> > > And guess what is more scalable. PI per client or PA per AS. If I read this as "routing table slots per client" or "routing table slots per AS" then the two are broadly equivalent... Andy PS, I would like a pony too.
- 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 ]