[address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)

..or you can file a proposal to change the current policy. You're very
obviously trying to solve a problem and I don't disagree that the problem
exists; I just don't like the proposed solution.

Remco


On 15-04-09 11:06, "Bartek Gajda" <gajda at man.poznan.pl> wrote:

> Remco van Mook wrote:
>> >
>> > I'm sorry but that goes back to my previous e-mail - a request for an
>> > AS is a request for an AS and I don't see how that should be related
>> > in any way to address space. What this achieves is the same level of
>> > fragmentation of the IPv6 space, but then in /32 blocks instead of
>> > /33, /34 and /35s. I don't see what the wider community gains here. If
>> > you need more space, request a larger block. If your issue is that
>> > some people filter smaller than /32 announcements then try to solve that.
> So what about is the current policy?
> You want to give some LIRs additional /32 because:
> "According to the IPv6 policy an IPv6 allocation must be announced as
> one prefix. Therefore, an organization operating four separate networks
> with one /32 IPv6 allocation cannot de-aggregate into for example a /34
> route announcement per network."
> And here you are suggesting me to de-agradate my allocation which this
> proposal trying to avoid! Doesn't  it looks like one can get what he or
> she wants but the other "can de-agraaate"??
> 
> Bartek
> 
>> > It's not like the global IPv6 routing table is going to explode any
>> > time soon.
>> >
>> > Personally I think IPv6 is going to be a runaway success by the time
>> > the DFZ hits 10,000 routes - filtering more specifics I can see the
>> > reason for, filtering smaller announcements I can not.
>> >
>> > Remco
>> >
>> >
>> > On 15-04-09 10:46, "Piotr Strzyzewski" <Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl> wrote:
>> >
>> >     On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 10:35:01AM +0200, Remco van Mook wrote:
>>> >     >
>>> >     > Hang on a second. This is now devolving into a proposal where you
>> >     can get a
>>> >     > separate AS and /32 for every customer your LIR serves and I will
>> >     definitely
>>> >     > not support that. I want a pony, too.
>> >
>> >     Correct me if I'm wrong, but allocation's goes to LIRs and not to
>> >     customers. Moreover, AS'es are owned by clearly distinguished
>> >     "entities".
>> >     We could add those two things together and make that like: /32 for
>> >     every
>> >     AS owned by LIR (in simplification).
>> >
>> >     Piotr
>> >
>> >     --
>> >     gucio -> Piotr Strzyżewski
>> >     E-mail: Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its
>> > associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted
>> > with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally
>> > privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you
>> > have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete
>> > this email immediately.  Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office:
>> > Quadrant House, Floor 6, 17 Thomas More Street, Thomas More Square,
>> > London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales No. 6293383.
>> >
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20090415/2216a29a/attachment.html>