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] scaling # of prefixes Re: Proposal 2011-02 moving to Last Call
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] scaling # of prefixes Re: Proposal 2011-02 moving to Last Call
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] scaling # of prefixes Re: Proposal 2011-02 moving to Last Call
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Mikael Abrahamsson
swmike at swm.pp.se
Fri Sep 30 10:33:23 CEST 2011
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011, Turchanyi Geza wrote: > So the hardwired limit of 0.5M IPv4 routes and 0.25k IPv6 does not allow > a few hundred thousands more IPv6 routes at all (not even would allow an > 0.25M IPv6 limit) -- and speed of processing is an other issue... Huh? Hardwired? It's not fixed, it is either configurable or dynamic, depending on platform. > In summary: we do not have the technology which would allow a very liberal > PI allocation policy, therefore a very liberal PI allocation policy is not > possible now. Yes. Current level of proposed "strictness" is ok for me right now, but I definitely believe it needs to be monitored closely. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] scaling # of prefixes Re: Proposal 2011-02 moving to Last Call
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] scaling # of prefixes Re: Proposal 2011-02 moving to Last Call
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]