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] "too many" /64 or /48 assignments causing address space exhaustion
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] "too many" /64 or /48 assignments causing address space exhaustion
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] "too many" /64 or /48 assignments causing address space exhaustion
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jim Reid
jim at rfc1035.com
Tue May 3 11:12:14 CEST 2011
On 3 May 2011, at 09:48, Turchanyi Geza wrote: > If an ISP receive max 2 IPv6 blocks, this is just two entries in the > (current BGP) routing table. > > The use of long prefixes in the costumer's network means more > costumers > served from the same block. > > Is there a point where we disagree? Not with the above. However the initial context of this discussion was about issing PI space to end customers. [For some definition of PI space and end customer.] So if one of those customers was to get one of these long prefixes, they might want to keep it if they switch providers => an extra route for a mickey-mouse amount of space. We know from v4 that this is a Bad Thing.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] "too many" /64 or /48 assignments causing address space exhaustion
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] "too many" /64 or /48 assignments causing address space exhaustion
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]