[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 ]
lists-ripe at c4inet.net
lists-ripe at c4inet.net
Wed Apr 15 18:12:45 CEST 2009
Hi, On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 04:59:32PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: > The current policy requires announcement of the aggregate, but does not > forbid announcements of more-specifics. Announcing the aggregate falls down in the "disconnected networks" case, though. > Whether or not more-specifics *work*, as in "all important peers accept > your routes", is not something the APWG can decide. There's not even a guarantee that a /32 (or more that one, fwiw) are going to be accepted. Who knows what people put in their filters? Regards, Sascha Luck
- 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 ]