<HTML> <HEAD> <TITLE>Re: [address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> ..or you can file a proposal to change the current policy. You’re very obviously trying to solve a problem and I don’t disagree that the problem exists; I just don’t like the proposed solution. Remco On 15-04-09 11:06, "Bartek Gajda" <<a href="gajda@man.poznan.pl">gajda@man.poznan.pl</a>> wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>Remco van Mook wrote: > > I’m sorry but that goes back to my previous e-mail – a request for an > AS is a request for an AS and I don’t see how that should be related > in any way to address space. What this achieves is the same level of > fragmentation of the IPv6 space, but then in /32 blocks instead of > /33, /34 and /35s. I don’t see what the wider community gains here. If > you need more space, request a larger block. If your issue is that > some people filter smaller than /32 announcements then try to solve that. So what about is the current policy? You want to give some LIRs additional /32 because: "According to the IPv6 policy an IPv6 allocation must be announced as one prefix. Therefore, an organization operating four separate networks with one /32 IPv6 allocation cannot de-aggregate into for example a /34 route announcement per network." And here you are suggesting me to de-agradate my allocation which this proposal trying to avoid! Doesn't it looks like one can get what he or she wants but the other "can de-agraaate"?? Bartek > It’s not like the global IPv6 routing table is going to explode any > time soon. > > Personally I think IPv6 is going to be a runaway success by the time > the DFZ hits 10,000 routes – filtering more specifics I can see the > reason for, filtering smaller announcements I can not. > > Remco > > > On 15-04-09 10:46, "Piotr Strzyzewski" <<a href="Piotr.Strzyzewski@polsl.pl">Piotr.Strzyzewski@polsl.pl</a>> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 10:35:01AM +0200, Remco van Mook wrote: > > > > Hang on a second. This is now devolving into a proposal where you > can get a > > separate AS and /32 for every customer your LIR serves and I will > definitely > > not support that. I want a pony, too. > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but allocation's goes to LIRs and not to > customers. Moreover, AS'es are owned by clearly distinguished > "entities". > We could add those two things together and make that like: /32 for > every > AS owned by LIR (in simplification). > > Piotr > > -- > gucio -> Piotr Strzy�ewski > E-mail: <a href="Piotr.Strzyzewski@polsl.pl">Piotr.Strzyzewski@polsl.pl</a> > > > > This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its > associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted > with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally > privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you > have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete > this email immediately. Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office: > Quadrant House, Floor 6, 17 Thomas More Street, Thomas More Square, > London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales No. 6293383. > </BLOCKQUOTE> </BODY> </HTML>