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] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)
- 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
Mon Sep 18 17:52:51 CEST 2006
Hi, On Sat, Sep 16, 2006 at 06:47:48PM +0100, Andy Davidson wrote: > If we accept argument that we should, as a community, advocate no > smaller PI assignments smaller than a /24 because of table > filtration, what happens when the table grows to the size that > operators start to filter on longer masks ? In that case, PI receipients holding a /24 suddenly are without connectivity to these networks - and will start yelling at RIPE. Which is basically the point while RIPE (and the RIPE NCC) has previously always refused to make any statements regarding the routeability of a given network size. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- 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] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]