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/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] Policies interact
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policies interact
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] ICANN Calls for Comments on the Proposed Review Procedure for ASO Policy Proposal
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet
woeber at cc.univie.ac.at
Fri Apr 8 17:07:40 CEST 2005
>>> For a routing decision you don't need 32 bits for an IPv4 prefix, >>> and you do not need 128 bits for an IPv6 prefix. >> Exact. >> A international routing decision can be limited to the first 64 Bits. >> The remaining 64 Bits are some sort of ARP-replacement. > >nope. folk are using /126s internally, and have igp or ibgp carrying >those prefixes. of course, they also have the classic loopbacks for >bgp, which can be /128s. real hardware vendors know this and don't >make the same mistakes as were made in the old a/b/c days. > >randy I thought we were talking about the routing table size and memory requirements for the DFZ. Are you implying that we will see those more specific /126s or /128s in the global routing table? Wilfried.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Policies interact
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] ICANN Calls for Comments on the Proposed Review Procedure for ASO Policy Proposal
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]