Re: [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)
-
To: Andy Davidson andy@localhost
-
From: Gert Doering gert@localhost
-
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 17:52:51 +0200
-
Cc: Gert Doering gert@localhost, address-policy-wg@localhost
-
Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys
-
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=testkey; d=space.net; b=W2aoXxNhvTOwmpBJ1qlNa2N/oIeDwyXx1JEW2mTgXlWacFInozumIUubGwLrknUl ;
Hi,
On Sat, Sep 16, 2006 at 06:47:48PM +0100, Andy Davidson wrote:
> If we accept argument that we should, as a community, advocate no
> smaller PI assignments smaller than a /24 because of table
> filtration, what happens when the table grows to the size that
> operators start to filter on longer masks ?
In that case, PI receipients holding a /24 suddenly are without
connectivity to these networks - and will start yelling at RIPE.
Which is basically the point while RIPE (and the RIPE NCC) has previously
always refused to make any statements regarding the routeability of
a given network size.
Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
--
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 94488
SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@localhost
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0
D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234
|