[address-policy-wg] PA policy
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] PA policy
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] PA policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sascha Luck [ml]
apwg at c4inet.net
Tue Jul 7 20:36:42 CEST 2015
On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 08:10:20PM +0200, Havard Eidnes wrote: >global routing system, as each individual sub-organization's route >will need to be carried globally, and there's no possibility for >route aggregation. I'm hesitating a little to find an appropriate >characterization of what would happen if such pratices became very >widespread, but I'm sure it certainly isn't positive for the >sustainability of the network. > >Regretfully, noone has come up with any sort of economic (the only >one which works...) dis-incentive countering such behaviour, so >we'll end up by muddling along. In the context of global IPv4 expiration, RIPE policy can't prevent de-aggregation down to /24 (or longer) any more than King Knut was able to order the tide back out. >BTW, this argument is address-family independent... ripe-641 strongly discourages ipv6 de-aggregation (and there is no good argument for it either) but the sheer potential size of the routing table will become a problem at some stage. That will have to be solved eventually but that is not likely to be on this ML.. ;) rgds, Sascha Luck
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] PA policy
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] PA policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]