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] status of 2011-02
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] status of 2011-02
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] status of 2011-02
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Nick Hilliard
nick at inex.ie
Mon Dec 12 11:13:17 CET 2011
On 12/12/2011 09:03, Randy Bush wrote:
> he is saying that we have long experience of what causes routing table
> bloat and that we are about to repeat a mistake we made once already.
that's exactly what I'm saying, except for the context in which I say it:
we need to repeat the mistake of PI for ipv6 because there are no good
alternatives for small-site v6 multihoming, and while historical context
has shown us that routing bloat is a problem, it's a problem which was and
remains manageable for at least v4
I still maintain my position on 2011-02 that removing the multihoming
requirement is not a good idea because we no longer have the {address
counting | multihoming} limiters which act as natural barriers in the case
of ipv4 PI assignments.
Nick
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] status of 2011-02
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] status of 2011-02
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]