[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 ]
Stream Service
info at streamservice.nl
Thu Apr 16 11:05:38 CEST 2009
Hello, -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Piotr Strzyzewski Sent: donderdag 16 april 2009 10:46 To: Remco van Mook Cc: Jerzy Pawlus; leo.vegoda at icann.org; marcoh at marcoh.net; gajda at man.poznan.pl; address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs) On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 10:28:18AM +0200, Remco van Mook wrote: Hi > I think you?re still missing the point that some of us are trying to make. I > simply don?t think that the proposal is a good way of solving the problem > (which is apparently part of a sentence in current policy). Adding a second > /32 to the global routing table has just as much impact as splitting up a > /32 in 2 /33s so there?s no gain there. And as indicated, filters that are > set by people are outside the scope of the address policy WG, and arguably > also outside the scope of RIPE policy. I don't agree with that. People tend to believe RIPE NCC (which is good). And if RIPE NCC publish in RIPE-447 that the longest prefix is /32, then this is the solid message on which one can easily setup filters with that prefix. Piotr =================== And don't forget all the systems that filter based on route objects in the RIR databases. So it should be allowed/possible to create route object for everything with more IPs as a /48 if you ask me. If you are required to aggregate it into 1 /32 if you have PA space there will be filters that check it and require it to be a /32 or refuse it at all. Please note that this requirement is by RIPE policy the case at this moment if I am correct. Just my 0.2 cents. Regards, Mark
- 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 ]