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

Hello,

-----Original Message-----
From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net
[mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Piotr Strzyzewski
Sent: donderdag 16 april 2009 10:46
To: Remco van Mook
Cc: Jerzy Pawlus; leo.vegoda at icann.org; marcoh at marcoh.net;
gajda at man.poznan.pl; address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [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

===================
And don't forget all the systems that filter based on route objects in the
RIR databases. So it should be allowed/possible to create route object for
everything with more IPs as a /48 if you ask me.

If you are required to aggregate it into 1 /32 if you have PA space there
will be filters that check it and require it to be a /32 or refuse it at
all. Please note that this requirement is by RIPE policy the case at this
moment if I am correct.

Just my 0.2 cents.

Regards, Mark