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] IPv6 PI resource question - Not for ISP but hosting
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI resource question!
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI resource question - Not for ISP but hosting
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Adrian Czapek
adriano at rybnet.pl
Mon Mar 7 13:30:58 CET 2011
My similar request was rejected for the same reasons. Although I did not get a proposal to sub-allocate PA address space from my allocation and deaggreage it over BGP, as Mathieu got, but let's assume that I would get such proposal if I asked for it. What puzzles me, what is the meaning of that action? Let's check the options: 1. They become LIR, they got their allocation - result: +1 prefix i global routing table. 2. They gets PA suballocation from other LIR and deaggreate it - result +1 prefix in global routing table. 3. They gets PI address space - +1 prefix in global routing table. As can be clearly seen above, global routing table growth is not an issue here, since IPRA suggests to deaggregate PA sub-allocations. So, what is an issue here, beacuse I have a strange feeling that only issue are $$ lost by certain RIR due to certain companies refusing to become LIR?! Regards -- Adrian
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI resource question!
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv6 PI resource question - Not for ISP but hosting
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]