[address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 InitialAllocation Criteria
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 InitialAllocation Criteria
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 InitialAllocation Criteria
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Michael.Dillon at radianz.com
Michael.Dillon at radianz.com
Thu Apr 21 12:22:17 CEST 2005
> Can this disparity in policies not be addressed using current protocols > and technologies simply by increasing the allowable boundary for the > backbone? This has a neat side effect of not having to alter the > issuing policy for /32s :) . If there is going to be a route in the global routing table then it is better for that route to be a /32 rather than to ambiguously allow for longer prefixes. Therefore, RIPE, and all other RIRs, should give organizations a /32 if they intend to announce routes in the global IPv6 routing table. This does not waste IPv6 space since a /32 is a very small fraction of the IPv6 address space. In fact, it is the same as an IPv4 /32 when measured as a percentage of the total IPv4 address space. --Michael Dillon
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 InitialAllocation Criteria
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #gamma IPv6 InitialAllocation Criteria
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]