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] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Mikael Abrahamsson
swmike at swm.pp.se
Thu Apr 21 15:55:23 CEST 2011
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Mikael Abrahamsson: > >> I don't want the money, I just want there to be *substantial cost* to >> take up a DFZ slot. > > And degrade overall routing quality because networks cannot afford > announcing shorter paths? I don't think this is a good idea. Please elaborate. I don't understand your reasoning. How does de-aggregation improve routing quality? -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-02 New Policy Proposal (Removal of multihomed requirement for IPv6)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]