[address-policy-wg] Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Niels Bakker
niels=apwg at bakker.net
Fri Jul 17 18:45:04 CEST 2009
* Keith.Nolan at premiereglobal.ie (Nolan, Keith) [Fri 17 Jul 2009, 13:06 CEST]: >I believe the proposal has great merit and needs further discussion, and >is directly related to my email on the 12th July. > > >"The other issue with suggesting that we use PI Space instead of PA >Space where we will not be in a position to aggregate is the PI >Assignment which would be approved would be less than a /24 (as we don't >need 128 addresses for Multi-homed BGP Peering), therefore wouldn't be >routable on the Internet (Policy proposal 2006-05 refers to this issue >and suggests the smallest PI Space should be /24) So the only way to >implement Multi-Homed BGP Routing from Multiple locations which don't >need a full /24 network is to become a LIR and create smaller /25 or /26 >inetnum's with larger /24 route objects from your PA Space. And since >this is a workaround, just like a company stretching the truth about >their IP requirements when applying for a PI Space to get a full /24, >surely a LIR should be allowed to create inetnum's for a /24 when they >also need to create a /24 route object." > >And while all transits may not route a /24 IP Range, the Tier1 transits >we are paying for transit do route /24 networks, but are filtering >anything smaller. The RIPE NCC hands out addresses based on a need for addresses, not on a need to satisfy other parties' policies. This is a good thing and it should stay that way. -- Niels. -- <BitKat> zo weten we nog steeds niet of de steganosaurus wel echt bestaan heeft
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]