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/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] Re: Say *YES* to PI space to anyone, but *NO* to small entities
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Say *YES* to PI space to anyone, but *NO* to small entities
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Say *YES* to PI space to anyone, but *NO* to small entities
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Daniel Roesen
dr at cluenet.de
Mon Apr 24 22:07:50 CEST 2006
On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 09:16:23PM +0900, Masataka Ohta wrote: > If renumbering is so painful and fairness is still required, even > top level ISPs with PI space should also be forced renumbering. Very good point. Actually, only true "tier 1" ISPs (those with no default routing and all external connections being either peers or customers... every ISP tech will understand what I mean, but this definition hair can be spliced infinitely) really _need_ PI. ALL others can use PA. This would bring the DFZ down to a very small 2-figure count of routes. :-) That's the only real fundamental NEED we can identify. All the other "needs" are luxury... and we would debating whom we allow this luxury and whom we do not. Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Say *YES* to PI space to anyone, but *NO* to small entities
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Say *YES* to PI space to anyone, but *NO* to small entities
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]