[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 ]
Piotr Strzyzewski
Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl
Thu Apr 16 10:46:12 CEST 2009
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 10:28:18AM +0200, Remco van Mook wrote: Hi > I think you?re still missing the point that some of us are trying to make. I > simply don?t think that the proposal is a good way of solving the problem > (which is apparently part of a sentence in current policy). Adding a second > /32 to the global routing table has just as much impact as splitting up a > /32 in 2 /33s so there?s no gain there. And as indicated, filters that are > set by people are outside the scope of the address policy WG, and arguably > also outside the scope of RIPE policy. I don't agree with that. People tend to believe RIPE NCC (which is good). And if RIPE NCC publish in RIPE-447 that the longest prefix is /32, then this is the solid message on which one can easily setup filters with that prefix. Piotr -- gucio -> Piotr Strzyżewski E-mail: Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl
- 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 ]