Re: [address-policy-wg] PI vs PA in routing table
-
To: Max Tulyev president@localhost
-
From: Gert Doering gert@localhost
-
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 14:07:19 +0200
-
Cc: "address-policy-wg@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=SBUXmtUFkuzCaMSNewyUjGuFWPX252PKIgA5kW+Kuaz6mE/M3WX6A6y6qTMj5MSl ;
Hi,
On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 03:41:06PM +0000, Max Tulyev wrote:
> Maybe there is no real "route table PI pollution" trouble in the real world?
Currently, there are much more PA entries than PI - but the problem that
I see is that the PI growth rate is much higher than PA, and as such,
"unlimited PI" might rise to be a problem.
Nobody is proposing to disallow PI.
Just balance "cost" vs. "convenience" a little bit better.
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
|
you are here: RIPE -> RIPE Maillists > Archives
