[address-policy-wg] ring-fencing v4 space for IXPs in 2011-05
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] ring-fencing v4 space for IXPs in 2011-05
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] ring-fencing v4 space for IXPs in 2011-05
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jim Reid
jim at rfc1035.com
Thu Oct 27 20:05:13 CEST 2011
On 27 Oct 2011, at 17:54, Andy Davidson wrote: >> I wonder too about how this policy could be gamed. What happens if >> new (or existing) LIRs pretend to be IXPs to snatch extra v4 space >> they wouldn't otherwise get? > > The IPRAs were very diligent enough to prevent this from happening > when IXPs were allowed v6 PI, when all other organisations were not. > > There was a clean definition written which has stood firm in later > analysis in ap sessions. > > I think this risk is well mitigated against. OK. Thanks Andy. I raised this as a theoretical concern. So provided the IPRAs can keep a lid on potential abuse of the policy, that's (sort of) fine. That'll be "good enough" IMO. I don't have a strong objection to the proposal even though I still have some reservations.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] ring-fencing v4 space for IXPs in 2011-05
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] ring-fencing v4 space for IXPs in 2011-05
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]