Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
Iljitsch van Beijnum
Fri Jan 26 21:31:09 CET 1996
> We just have some differences of philosophy -- you think > that RIPE really can persuade people into having only > 1024 announements (preferably far fewer) in 195/8, and > I don't. That's all. > The compromise we could find would involve a practicable > method by which we don't have to put a prefix-length-floor > in place, but at the same time don't have to spend enormous > amounts of (unavailable) CPU time filtering based on what's > in the RIPE database. So how is this for a compromise: If there actually _are_ more announcements than 1024 in any particular /8 under the control of the RIPE NCC, you implement filtering in such a way that it gets down below 1024 again. In this scenario, as long as the NCC can persuade it's customers to aggregate, there are no problems. And if problems arise, it is extremely likely that they can be fixed by filtering /20 and longer. That way, only the offenders suffer and not the people who aggregate as RIPE tells them to do. A weekly check to see if the number of announcements stays below 1024 would be quite adequate and not unduly machine or manpower intensive, in my opinion.
[ lir-wg Archive ]