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] ring-fencing v4 space for IXPs in 2011-05
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] ring-fencing v4 space for IXPs in 2011-05
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] ring-fencing v4 space for IXPs in 2011-05
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Andy Davidson
andy at nosignal.org
Thu Oct 27 18:54:55 CEST 2011
Hi Jim -- On 27 Oct 2011, at 14:26, Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com> wrote: > I wonder too about how this policy could be gamed. What happens if new (or existing) LIRs pretend to be IXPs to snatch extra v4 space they wouldn't otherwise get? The IPRAs were very diligent enough to prevent this from happening when IXPs were allowed v6 PI, when all other organisations were not. There was a clean definition written which has stood firm in later analysis in ap sessions. I think this risk is well mitigated against. Andy
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] ring-fencing v4 space for IXPs in 2011-05
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] ring-fencing v4 space for IXPs in 2011-05
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]