Hello, -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Piotr Strzyzewski Sent: donderdag 16 april 2009 10:46 To: Remco van Mook Cc: Jerzy Pawlus; leo.vegoda@icann.org; marcoh@marcoh.net; gajda@man.poznan.pl; address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs) On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 10:28:18AM +0200, Remco van Mook wrote: Hi
I think you?re still missing the point that some of us are trying to make. I simply don?t think that the proposal is a good way of solving the problem (which is apparently part of a sentence in current policy). Adding a second /32 to the global routing table has just as much impact as splitting up a /32 in 2 /33s so there?s no gain there. And as indicated, filters that are set by people are outside the scope of the address policy WG, and arguably also outside the scope of RIPE policy.
I don't agree with that. People tend to believe RIPE NCC (which is good). And if RIPE NCC publish in RIPE-447 that the longest prefix is /32, then this is the solid message on which one can easily setup filters with that prefix. Piotr =================== And don't forget all the systems that filter based on route objects in the RIR databases. So it should be allowed/possible to create route object for everything with more IPs as a /48 if you ask me. If you are required to aggregate it into 1 /32 if you have PA space there will be filters that check it and require it to be a /32 or refuse it at all. Please note that this requirement is by RIPE policy the case at this moment if I am correct. Just my 0.2 cents. Regards, Mark