About RIPE | Contact  | Search | Sitemap    
Homepage RIPE  
RIPE Community Mail Archives
search  
     
RIPE Navigation Ends
About RIPE Maillists
Maillists Archive
Global Lists
Non Active Lists
RIPE NCC Navigation Ends
Next Section
<<< Chronological >>> Author Index    Subject Index <<< Threads >>>

Re: 90 IPv6 sub-TLA allocations made

  • To:
  • From: David R Huberman < >
  • Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 07:28:32 -0700 (MST)
  • Cc: "Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet" < >
  • Delivered-received: (qmail 2861 invoked by uid 66); 8 Aug 2001 14:34:28 -0000
  • In-message-id: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0108080726580.26669-100000@localhost>

To: lists-lir-wg-out@localhost
To: James Aldridge jhma@localhost


Reply-To: <E15UTi5-0001hs-00@localhost>

 
> Of course, that one sub-TLA gives us a total amount of address space which is
> adequate for our current requirements for the whole network but once this is
> split over each of about 20 separate autonomous systems, each with their own
> routing policy, this is hardly going to result in optimally aggregatable
> routing...

And when you explain this to RIPE, how do they respond? If you can make a
bona fide engineering argument for obtaining more than one sub-TLA, it
seems to me that any RIR is obliged to seriously consider that argument.

/david





  • Post To The List:
<<< Chronological >>> Author    Subject <<< Threads >>>
 

Next Section
     About RIPE | Site Map | LIR Portal | About the RIPE NCC | Contact | Copyright Statement
RIPE.NET Homepage LIR Portal RIPE Community