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/[email protected]/
[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 ]
lists-ripe at c4inet.net
lists-ripe at c4inet.net
Wed Apr 15 18:12:45 CEST 2009
Hi, On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 04:59:32PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: > The current policy requires announcement of the aggregate, but does not > forbid announcements of more-specifics. Announcing the aggregate falls down in the "disconnected networks" case, though. > Whether or not more-specifics *work*, as in "all important peers accept > your routes", is not something the APWG can decide. There's not even a guarantee that a /32 (or more that one, fwiw) are going to be accepted. Who knows what people put in their filters? Regards, Sascha Luck
- 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 ]