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] Proposal for change to the IPv4 PI allocation policy
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Proposal for change to the IPv4 PI allocation policy
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Proposal for change to the IPv4 PI allocation policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Garry Glendown
garry at nethinks.com
Wed Aug 23 17:58:33 CEST 2006
Max Tulyev wrote: > Hi, > > Gert Doering wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 04:54:42PM +0000, Max Tulyev wrote: >>> Another good idea is to remove user scaring story about PI is worse >>> routeable than PA from RIPE documents. >> Well - that won't tell the truth. >> >> PI *is* worse to debug if some targets can't be reached (if only because >> you normally can't run traceroutes from inside customer PI networks). > > But what exactly (versus PA) is worse? Same ping and traceroute, same > bgp debug, so on. There is a possibility of people being tight on memory and filtering something like /24 or /23, and then not being able to reach or be reached by a /24 PI, because they also neglected to have a default route to their uplink ... Apart from that, I have not been informed of any problems with /24 or larger PI networks ... But then, RIPE policies would allow for (or even enforce) PI networks smaller than /24 to be assigned - which will most likely NOT be reachable from the Internet ... -gg
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Proposal for change to the IPv4 PI allocation policy
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Proposal for change to the IPv4 PI allocation policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]