-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 [ sorry, Gert, for only sending to you privately on my 1st attempt :-/ ] Gert Doering wrote:
Hi everybody,
I have asked Filiz to extend the discussion period for this proposal, because there have been *no* comments in the last round - but the proposal itself was changed, and as such, I can't just declare "consensus" or "no consensus" here.
Please give us your input on whether you think the proposal *as written right now* is a good thing to have. I fully support the proposal.
Just as an editorial comment: We should also remove the "requirement" to advertise the prefix. This is another (useless) artificial barrier to the deployment of IPv6 as a generally avalable technology for building networks. Even if it is kept, the holder of a prefix can still "advertise" the prefix to - well to whom and where?? Central IPv6 Routing Police? - and still *not* carry traffic for any particular application. What have we got, other than a useless occupied slot in some routing tables... I'd propose to reword it slightly along the lines of: "If the prefix is advertised or announced towards the routing core it has to be advertised as, or aggregated into, a single announcement." I'm sure "Routing" can help with this if needed. Wilfried
regards,
Gert Doering, Address Policy WG Chair
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32) iQCVAwUBReK8yd/RXX7wrLNpAQJdnwP/XrZo9I1oYMA5nkvY+bVM6IGuw4O0xvVq CGiwfnkkmbL7gnABrbu386ELVTvc2frF68p/T0V5OeiInJBy3Yi6rt8kI6mI1cYE UAhbbjQ4x4KRO69HVH1I8jGh+yd8AjzJnd+g8vbXcA11c80EPEDlP33N5FJOEJhe qZ92VsSh7JA= =Psu+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----