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] Comment on 2006-05 (PI Assignment Size)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Comment on 2006-05 (PI Assignment Size)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 Draft Documents will be edited (Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sander Steffann
s.steffann at computel.nl
Thu Oct 26 20:16:04 CEST 2006
Hi, > I support the 2006-05 proposal. We have one client who insisted > on getting PI space, but they qualified for at most /27. Then we > had to actually request that /27 and have them expierience what > prefix filtering does to small PI networks. I'm a bit afraid of mixing RIPE address policy interests/requirements and routing policy interests/requirements. Ofcourse a lot of address space is requested to be routed, so there is a connection between the two. I'm just afraid that common routing policies will change if we change the address policy, so then we'll have to change the address policy again, which will lead to changes in common routing policy, etc.. We have to be careful here. Sander
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Comment on 2006-05 (PI Assignment Size)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2005-08 Draft Documents will be edited (Proposal to Amend the IPv6 Assignment and Utilisation Requirement Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]