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/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] Any-cast or uni-cast solutions
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Any-cast or uni-cast solutions
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Any-cast or uni-cast solutions
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Shane Kerr
shane at time-travellers.org
Tue May 29 11:12:46 CEST 2012
David, On Thursday, 2012-05-24 09:12:38 -0700, David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org> wrote: > On May 23, 2012, at 11:34 PM, Shane Kerr wrote: > > On Thursday, 2012-05-24 07:32:02 +0900, > > Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> wrote: > >>> The need and the route origination must be in the RIPE NCC service > >>> region. > >> > >> ahem! the ncc has repeatedly said over many years that it has > >> nothing to do with routing. > > I don't think this is true. > > Actually, all the RIRs have said this. I'm pretty sure that the RIPE NCC has said that it can't guarantee route-ability, not that it has nothing to do with routing. Because, frankly, that would be insane considering the whole point of maintaining these databases of who can use which numbers is to allow people to connect computers together on the Internet! Plus the RIPE NCC runs the ROUTING Information Service (RIS), a ROUTING Registry Database (RRD), a ROUTING Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) effort, attempts ROUTE de-bogonizing, and so on. My understanding is that the RIRs don't want to get involved with peering relationships between LIRs. I assume that the LIRs are also quite happy with the RIRs staying out of their business. > > So, you may need to meet certain routing requirements to qualify for > > resources. > > Historically, this was _not_ the case. Long, long ago, there was a > bit of a dust up between the IAB and (at least some) RIR folks that > resulted in RFC 1814. However, that was long ago and policies might > have changed. In the very first IPv6 allocation policy, we see the following: a. The requesting organization's IPv6 network must have exterior routing protocol peering relationships with the IPv6 networks of at least three other orga- nizations that have a sub-TLA allocated to them. That's RIPE 196, from the late 20th century. I'm not sure if that counts as "historically" or not. ;) Additionally, the AS number form, the IPv6 PI form, and the temporary PI assignment form in the RIPE region *currently* all request information about peering relationships. (I think, but am not sure, that only the AS number assignment actually requires peering though.) -- Shane
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Any-cast or uni-cast solutions
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Any-cast or uni-cast solutions
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]