[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 ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Thu Apr 16 11:15:32 CEST 2009
Hi, On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:05:38AM +0200, Stream Service wrote: > 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. This is very well possible. The RIPE database permits route6: objects of any size, as long as they fit into your inet6num: object (so you can't create a /30 route if you only have a /32 inet6num, but you can perfectly well create a /40 route). So, please, get your facts right - heating up the discussion based on incorrect information isn't helping us to figure out how the new policy should look like. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
- 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 ]