[address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #alpha: TLD Anycast Allocation Policy
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #alpha: TLD Anycast Allocation Policy
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #alpha: TLD Anycast Allocation Policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Iljitsch van Beijnum
iljitsch at muada.com
Wed Mar 23 22:53:54 CET 2005
On 23-mrt-05, at 11:28, Sander Steffann wrote: >> I myself would prefer a defined range (say, a /32 block out of which >> /48s are allocated), but I seem to be a minority with that opinion. > I'll join that minority group :-) I would strongly prefer a smaller block than a /32. ARIN has a /30. If someone makes a filter that allows upto /48 in that /30, this means that some evildoer could inject 250k /48s in that /30 and make routers all over the world run out of memory. On the other hand, if RIPE would use a /35 or something like that, this would only allow for a maximum of 8192 of these prefixes. A leak of that size presumably won't kill too many routers. I would also be very happy if RIPE would charge enough money to people wanting to do this to make them consider whether they really need it.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #alpha: TLD Anycast Allocation Policy
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policy proposal: #alpha: TLD Anycast Allocation Policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]