[ipv6-wg at ripe.net] New Document available: RIPE-343

hi,

On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 02:41:19PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
[..]
> The notion that divvying up the globe into four or five parts in order 
> to save on routing table expenditures in nonsense. 

Thanks for your kind words.

> Either filtering out 
> "far away" information is a good idea, and then we should do it right, 
> or it isn't, and then we don't need to do it at all.
> 
> By doing it right I mean putting several layers of geographical 
> hierarchy into addresses. In Europe, this would mean at least the 
> country level, in large countries like the US, China and India the 
> state/province level.

That's not contradicting what I said:

  "People did not like RIPE-261 because of the common address pool".

whether you dislike the CAP because you want continental, country level,
or whatever other distribution system, doesn't really change the statement
"people didn't like the CAP, and so there was consensus against 261".

Which is all this thread is about.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  71007  (66629)

SpaceNet AG                    Mail: netmaster at Space.Net
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14      Tel : +49-89-32356-0
D- 80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-234