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 ]
Remco van Mook
remco.vanmook at eu.equinix.com
Thu Apr 16 10:28:18 CEST 2009
Dear Jurek, I think you¹re still missing the point that some of us are trying to make. I simply don¹t think that the proposal is a good way of solving the problem (which is apparently part of a sentence in current policy). Adding a second /32 to the global routing table has just as much impact as splitting up a /32 in 2 /33s so there¹s no gain there. And as indicated, filters that are set by people are outside the scope of the address policy WG, and arguably also outside the scope of RIPE policy. Now, if you were to suppose to just take out the offending part of current policy, that would have my undying support. Kind regards, Remco On 16-04-09 10:11, "Jerzy Pawlus" <Jerzy.Pawlus at cyf-kr.edu.pl> wrote: > > > Leo, > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 09:02:06AM -0700, Leo Vegoda wrote: >> > On 15/04/2009 2:34, "Marco Hogewoning" <marcoh at marcoh.net> wrote: >>> > > Let's assume you have a seperate entity in your company, which >>> > > operates in a different geographical region under it's own AS and >>> > > routing policy. Only one company (the holding for instance) is an LIR >>> > > in the current situation. >>> > > >>> > > How do you solve this at the moment iin IPv4-land ? >> > >> > Good question. Isn't the normal answer to open a separate LIR for the >> > separate business unit? > > > Your solution, although possible, has some drawbacks: > > It adds administrative burden, this was discussed here. > But it also will diminish the remaining unallocated IPv4 space. > > I think we can modify your idea slightly. Let's assign > 10 'scoring units' for a second and subsequent /32 not fulfilling HD-Ratio. > It will effectively move an LIR to a higher billing category. > This, plus requirement of seperate routing policy may convince people > to support the new policy. > > Jurek > > > > 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/20090416/3a2240d8/attachment.html>
- 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 ]