[address-policy-wg] 2010-06 New Policy Proposal (Registration Requirements for IPv6 End User Assignments): discussion in the IPv6-WG mailing list
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-06 New Policy Proposal (Registration Requirements for IPv6 End User Assignments): discussion in the IPv6-WG mailing list
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-06 New Policy Proposal (Registration Requirements for IPv6 End User Assignments)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sander Steffann
sander at steffann.nl
Fri Sep 3 21:38:15 CEST 2010
Hi Marco, > Oh and could people at least cross-post ? Sorry. Probably my fault. >>>> The only issue I have is that it appears to mandate that all assignments makes from a SUB-ASSIGNED PA block are exactly the length specified. This means that if the ISP has policies of, say, /56 for most customers but /48 for some, while at the same time wanting to implement some form of per-PoP prefix aggregation, it means assigning multiple blocks per aggregation point, one per assignment size. >>> >>> Allowing multiple "assignment-size:" fields might solve that. >> >> No it won't, you have a /40 with assignment size /56 and /64 and then how to specify which customer has what. Can't we solve this by allowing more specifics ? >> >> The original thought was to just create multiple entries, one for each assignment size. But we could allow for something like: >> >> bla:://40 -> assignment size /48 >> bla::1/48 -> assignment size /56 After thinking about it, this seems to be the best solution. Sander
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-06 New Policy Proposal (Registration Requirements for IPv6 End User Assignments): discussion in the IPv6-WG mailing list
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-06 New Policy Proposal (Registration Requirements for IPv6 End User Assignments)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]