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] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] DRAFT agenda for RIPE 53 address policy WG meeting
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Fri Sep 15 21:01:26 CEST 2006
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 10:58:38AM +0200, Sascha Lenz wrote:
> . o O(and i really wonder why there's still no rant about global routing
> table size increase by allowing routing issues to be PI-assignment
> relevant..)
Because it doesn't make a difference.
It just means "people will no longer lie to the RIPE hostmasters".
What I am really worried about is people getting "lots and lots" of PI,
and using multiple routing table slots, instead of getting a reasonable
chunk of addresses (however named), and announcing only *one* route.
(I'm not talking about TE - this is a can of worms in itself - but about
"poor address planning" or "using PI as a substitute for becoming a LIR")
Gert Doering
-- APWG Co-Chair
--
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 94488
SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0
D- 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-234
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] DRAFT agenda for RIPE 53 address policy WG meeting
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]