Re: [lir-wg] IPv6 assignments to RIPE itself
- Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 15:40:08 +0100
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 03:07:57PM +0100, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote:
> >> As Leo already explained: RIPE != RIPE NCC. I see the usefulness of
> >> a /48 that travels along with the RIPE meetings. As far as I know,
> >> this /48 always has the same upstream (the RIPE _NCC_ office) by
> >> means of a v6-in-v4 tunnel.
> >
> >And exactly this is the reason why I don't see the need for a second /48.
>
> I don't get your point here. What are you trying to salvage?
> 1x /48 out of SURFnet's sTLA or 1x /48 out of the /42 or ??
I want to clarify policy. The policy says "one end customer gets ONE /48
(except if they are so big that they need more address space)".
I don't want to conserve anything here, and I don't really mind if the
NCC uses a /42 - I'm just being nasty on purpose to point out problems
in the current set of policy definitions.
Whatever the outcome of this discussion will be, I hope that it will
lead to some more understanding of the way address distribution should
be done.
Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
--
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 55593 (55180)
SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@localhost
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0
80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
