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] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Andy Davidson
andy at nosignal.org
Wed Apr 15 12:04:27 CEST 2009
On 15 Apr 2009, at 10:57, Jerzy Pawlus wrote: > *Andy, > >>> Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs >> >> I do not support this proposal. If an org (LIR or not) needs a >> separate address block for routing reasons, then this should be >> catered for through the PI policy. >> >> PA should be aggregatable. There's a clue in the name. ;-) >> > > And guess what is more scalable. PI per client or PA per AS. If I read this as "routing table slots per client" or "routing table slots per AS" then the two are broadly equivalent... Andy PS, I would like a pony too.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]