[address-policy-wg] RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allow allocations to critical infrastructure

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Randy Bush" <randy at psg.com>
To: "Daniel Monteith" <DanielMo at InterXion.com>
Cc: <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 4:40 PM
Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allow
allocations to critical infrastructure


> > /24 if only
>
> heck, why not /32?
>

Filtering on /32 shouldn't be a huge problem. I count 4 294 967 296 /32's.
That's the upper limit and it's really not that much.
If we did permit /32's, a router could for instance aggregate incoming
chunks of matching netblocks into fewer ones in order to decrease workload
and memory usage etc...
Without thinking too hard, this number is also the same if we filter on /32
with IPv6.
But we are talking about filtering on /48 these days so that's a bigger
challenge.

Permitting /32 would atleast solve the problem with anycast.

Joergen Hovland