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] Idea for aggregating IP addresses
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Idea for aggregating IP addresses
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jörg Kost
jk at rz089.de
Fri Sep 23 09:25:38 CEST 2016
Hi, but the receiving party could (will?) announce more specific prefixes after the trade, therefore it wont make a big difference after all. Jörg On 23 Sep 2016, at 9:10, Ping IP wrote: > Hello Jörg, > > Although I used a /22 and /20 as an example. I deliberately mention IP > addresses, since this idea can be used for IPv4 and IPv6. > > Perhaps its too little, too late for IPv4. But it helps one of the > goals of > RIPE. > > Best regards, > > Abdelouahed > Ping IP network > > 2016-09-22 16:04 GMT+02:00 Jörg Kost > <joerg.kost at premium-datacenter.de>: > >> Hi, >> >> I like the idealism of this idea, but it is too little, too late and >> much >> too many work to save a few bytes on the ip4 routing table. This race >> is >> lost, adding more memory to the board or block and remove certain >> routes >> will be the solution. My focus shifted already to the future (?) >> disaggregation of ip6, where we had hit the 32k lately. >> >> Jörg >> >> >> On 22 Sep 2016, at 14:37, Ping IP wrote: >> >> Hello, >>> >>> One of the goals of RIPE is to aggregate IP addresses. I'd like to >>> suggest >>> the ability for a LIR and End User to exchange number of blocks of >>> IP >>> ranges for a greater block. >>> >>> For example: >>> LIR/End User has 4 different /22 subnets and LIR/End User can >>> exchange >>> these subnets for 1 x /20 subnet. >>> >>> This gives a LIR or End User the possibility to announce larger IP >>> subnets >>> to the Internet. Helping the goal of aggregating the IP addresses on >>> the >>> Internet. >>> >>> According one of the RIPE trainer, this is currently not possible >>> according >>> the RIPE policy. Because there's no policy to give a LIR/End User >>> this >>> ability. >>> >>> I'm curious to what you think of this idea. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Abdelouahed >>> Ping IP network >>> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160923/38058b0f/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Idea for aggregating IP addresses
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]