Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
Daniel Karrenberg Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net
Fri Jan 26 19:24:07 CET 1996
> Sean Doran <smd at cesium.clock.org> writes: > > | Now can we try to make things work rather than point fingers! > > Yes, indeed; that is the ultimate goal we share. Pooooh .... relief. > We just have some differences of philosophy -- you think > that RIPE really can persuade people into having only > 1024 announements (preferably far fewer) in 195/8, and > I don't. That's all. OK. I call this a challenge but you won't let me try ;-). > The compromise we could find would involve a practicable > method by which we don't have to put a prefix-length-floor > in place, but at the same time don't have to spend enormous > amounts of (unavailable) CPU time filtering based on what's > in the RIPE database. All I am suggesting is to set it at /19 initially which should consume roughly ;-) as many CPU time as setting it to /18. Should we fail to meet the challenge later, I suggest to set it to /18 and allow some /19 exceptions caused by our allocation policy. This will be a quite limited number, the information will be machine readable in real time. We will provide the tools (3 lines perl) to generate filters from it. Frankly: If you cannot do this your motives become quite questionable. > Avoiding large amounts of (largely unavailable) staff time > at Sprint and RIPE to chase down offenders and try to figure > out how to stop them from ignoring their contribution to > melting routers is also something I'd like to avoid. It is not as big a deal as you want to make it. Daniel
[ lir-wg Archives ]