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] Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Masataka Ohta
mohta at necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp
Thu Jul 16 18:02:54 CEST 2009
Jeroen Wunnink wrote: > In the current IPv4 address policy, routability on the internet is not a > factor that is allowed to be taken into account when a PI space is > requested. Yet anything smaller then a /24 is pretty much useless since > most providers filter anything below /24 out. I think minimum PA allocation should, instead, be /24. Then, ISPs assigning /26 (or /28, maybe) to their customers will start actively exchanging /26. Of course, the number of routing table entries will further explode, but it will so with IPv6. Masataka Ohta
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]