[address-policy-wg] Re: [GLOBAL-V6] Re: [ppml] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it less destructive
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [GLOBAL-V6] Re: [ppml] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it less destructive
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [GLOBAL-V6] Re: [ppml] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it less destructive
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Tim Chown
tjc at ecs.soton.ac.uk
Thu Apr 20 18:28:43 CEST 2006
On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 07:15:15PM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote: > > Based on observations in v4 land, there are sites that specifically > want to do something other than the first option, and I specifically > want to preclude them from doing so. > > For almost every site, a /48 is enough. For those for whom it's not > enough, they already want separable advertisements for TE purposes > (e.g., multiple data centers), so they need either multiple /48's or > tricks like above in any case. I think pekka already hinted at it, but people interested in this topic really should look at: http://www.iepg.org/march2006/BGP-2005.pdf for some analysis of a situation that could get worse. I think there's arguments both ways on this, but Geoff's talk was very interesting and enlightening. -- Tim/::1
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [GLOBAL-V6] Re: [ppml] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it less destructive
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [GLOBAL-V6] Re: [ppml] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it less destructive
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]