[ipv6-wg at ripe.net] Allocation behaviour (organisations getting multiple /32's)]

On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 13:38 +0200, Hans Petter Holen wrote:
> Jeroen Massar wrote:
> 
> >
> >Except that these are bound to be announced separately.
> >Getting a block from ARIN, one from RIPE and one from APNIC seems
> >plausible to me, but getting a block for every country one is in defeats
> >the whole aggregation idea.
> >
> 
> I dont really se what the benefit of getting different blocks from 
> dfferent RIRs have.

So that you don't have to haul traffic arriving in Africa for the site
in US over your own network. Just one of the many traffic engineering
issues when you are only announcing one single prefix.

>  I get one single block I have the choice of 
> announcing it as one prefix or as multiple prefixes. If I get multiple 
> blocks I only have the choice of annoincing it as multiple prefixes.

Thus, you hereby say, that every organisation should get a large block
and simply split it up, to whatever extent they think suitable, and
announce multiple smaller prefixes?

What is the use of "Provider *Aggregated*" again?
Why not call it "Provider Block" then because it will not be aggregated
any more when splitting it up.

Do also note that there are a couple of organisations already
announcing /48's out of /32's and typically, due to filtering >/32,
these prefixes have nice 'around the world' (as in packets go around the
world, not that they are reachable) connectivity.

Greets,
 Jeroen

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 240 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/ipv6-wg/attachments/20050719/8afe3bbc/attachment.sig>