Re: [ipv6-wg@localhost] RE: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security
- Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:36:23 +0100
- Organisation: s-lz.net
Hay,
On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 09:55:19PM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 10:13:55AM +0100, leo vegoda wrote:
> > "4.0 Warning
> >
> > Networks assigned under this policy may not be globally routable."
> >
> > People may want to change the warning from "may not be globally
> > routable" to "should not be globally routable" (or another choice of
> > words). If so, we're happy to publish an updated document with whatever
> > wording the community reaches consensus on.
>
> I'll recommend against changing this. Whether or not this *should*
> be routeable is not part of the RIPE policy.
>
> The whole statement is a *warning* - "hey, this network block is special,
> and the assignments are smaller. So it's possible that routing may
> not be possible. You have been warned!".
>
> It doesn't mandate any sort of best practice, and it shouldn't - the
> community doesn't know yet what the best practice on prefix filtering
> *is*, so how can a policy document?
i have to second this.
Routeability never was and never will be a RIPE Policy issue in my eyes.
So there can only be a warning that some Prefixes - be it IPv4 or IPv6,
_may_ not be routable, but not "should not" or "must not".
Such things are rather part of RfC's or something.
Routing is rather a global issue, not an issue of one of the RIRs alone.
...and yes, i acutally am _against_ any filters on RIR IPv6-Allocation
boundaries or similar anyways, it's a totally different thing than in
IPv4 (and even there it doesn't really make sense nowerdays to filter
on RIR boundaries) but that's another holy war.
--
==========================================================================
= Sascha 'master' Lenz SL277-RIPE slz@localhost =
= =
= You can rent this space for $$$ * PGP public Key on demand * =
==========================================================================
|