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

On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 10:28:18AM +0200, Remco van Mook wrote:

Hi

> I think you?re still missing the point that some of us are trying to make. I
> simply don?t 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 there?s 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.

I don't agree with that. People tend to believe RIPE NCC (which is
good). And if RIPE NCC publish in RIPE-447 that the longest prefix is
/32, then this is the solid message on which one can easily setup
filters with that prefix.

Piotr

-- 
gucio -> Piotr Strzyżewski
E-mail: Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl