This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[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 ]