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]/
[ipv6-wg at ripe.net] RE: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] RE: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] RE: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sascha Lenz
slz at s-lz.net
Fri Dec 12 11:36:23 CET 2003
Hay, On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 09:55:19PM +0100, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 10:13:55AM +0100, leo vegoda wrote: > > "4.0 Warning > > > > Networks assigned under this policy may not be globally routable." > > > > People may want to change the warning from "may not be globally > > routable" to "should not be globally routable" (or another choice of > > words). If so, we're happy to publish an updated document with whatever > > wording the community reaches consensus on. > > I'll recommend against changing this. Whether or not this *should* > be routeable is not part of the RIPE policy. > > The whole statement is a *warning* - "hey, this network block is special, > and the assignments are smaller. So it's possible that routing may > not be possible. You have been warned!". > > It doesn't mandate any sort of best practice, and it shouldn't - the > community doesn't know yet what the best practice on prefix filtering > *is*, so how can a policy document? i have to second this. Routeability never was and never will be a RIPE Policy issue in my eyes. So there can only be a warning that some Prefixes - be it IPv4 or IPv6, _may_ not be routable, but not "should not" or "must not". Such things are rather part of RfC's or something. Routing is rather a global issue, not an issue of one of the RIRs alone. ...and yes, i acutally am _against_ any filters on RIR IPv6-Allocation boundaries or similar anyways, it's a totally different thing than in IPv4 (and even there it doesn't really make sense nowerdays to filter on RIR boundaries) but that's another holy war. -- ========================================================================== = Sascha 'master' Lenz SL277-RIPE slz at s-lz.net = = = = You can rent this space for $$$ * PGP public Key on demand * = ==========================================================================
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] RE: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] RE: /48 micro allocations for v6 root servers, was: national security
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]