[address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Tom Hill
tom.hill at bytemark.co.uk
Thu Sep 21 16:26:05 CEST 2017
On 21/09/17 15:18, Randy Bush wrote: > indeed. but i see it as inevitable as the need to bridge becomes more > and more intense. so do we want to do it in a controlled and managed > fashion or chaotically? Over half of the table is made-up of /24s; that is not a coincidence. If any new "standard" is chosen for the minimum visible prefix size, you can bet all of those /24 announcements will start turning into a lot more /25 announcements very quickly. "But otherwise I'm liable to hijack!", ad infinitum. I dunno about you, but I can see a lot of operators not being too happy with a ~25% increase in the number of prefixes they're storing in TCAM. -- Tom Hill Network Manager Bytemark Hosting http://www.bytemark.co.uk/ tel. +44 1904 890 890 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20170921/3ee6b159/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]