[address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Marco Hogewoning
marcoh at marcoh.net
Tue Apr 14 15:53:46 CEST 2009
On 14 apr 2009, at 14:57, Ingrid Wijte wrote: > PDP Number: 2009-05 > Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs > > Dear Colleagues > > A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for > discussion. Personally I don't like the following phrase: 'In case the routing policies would no longer be unique and/or the networks have effectively merged, the additional /32 allocations must be returned to the RIPE NCC' IMHO this should be extended to at least give a decent timeframe to renumber and possibly should differentiate between LIR's which have requested additional blocks for routing and/or administrative purposes and those who ended up with multiple allocations because they merged with some other LIR. And as an open question, what would happen if I would merge 2 autonomous systems in 1 LIR (If I understand correctly this is after all what is being proposed) both are operating a /32 which is over 50% usage ? a) grow one of the 2 allocations to /31 and renumber the other b) keep the 2 /32's on expense of 1 extra route in the DFZ but save yourself the renumbering task and secondly doesn't this open up the path to /32 per AS instead to / 32 per LIR ? Groet, MarcoH
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]