[address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] DRAFT agenda for RIPE 53 address policy WG meeting
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Fri Sep 15 21:01:26 CEST 2006
Hi, On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 10:58:38AM +0200, Sascha Lenz wrote: > . o O(and i really wonder why there's still no rant about global routing > table size increase by allowing routing issues to be PI-assignment > relevant..) Because it doesn't make a difference. It just means "people will no longer lie to the RIPE hostmasters". What I am really worried about is people getting "lots and lots" of PI, and using multiple routing table slots, instead of getting a reasonable chunk of addresses (however named), and announcing only *one* route. (I'm not talking about TE - this is a can of worms in itself - but about "poor address planning" or "using PI as a substitute for becoming a LIR") Gert Doering -- APWG Co-Chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 94488 SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] DRAFT agenda for RIPE 53 address policy WG meeting
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]