[address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Andy Davidson
andy at nosignal.org
Sat Sep 16 19:47:48 CEST 2006
On 15 Sep 2006, at 20:01, Gert Doering wrote: > 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. There is a real risk that networks due to router resource constraints, who already filter on shorter-than-/24 prefixes will have to cope with any routing table growth by filtering on /23, /22, etc. If we accept argument that we should, as a community, advocate no smaller PI assignments smaller than a /24 because of table filtration, what happens when the table grows to the size that operators start to filter on longer masks ? Andy
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]