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] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it lessdestructive
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it lessdestructive
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it lessdestructive
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Nick Hilliard
nick at inex.ie
Fri May 12 13:46:38 CEST 2006
[cc: line trimmed] > The problem is just a "I DO NOT WANT THIS", "I BELIEVE", > "I DON'T LIKE" by certain people. This opinion was based on the memory of a time when routing table size threatened to exceed the maximum capacity of the routers of the day, and would have exceeded this capacity without the introduction of CIDR and strong aggregation. Once bitten, twice shy. So we are left with a legacy that strong aggregation is good policy, and our addressing allocation requirements are substantially based on this policy. We don't have such a problem with routing table size these days, but the engineering point was made and is still valid. Nick
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it lessdestructive
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it lessdestructive
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]