[address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Policy Proposal (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Policy Proposal (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Policy Proposal (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jan Ingvoldstad
frettled at gmail.com
Tue May 12 15:09:16 CEST 2015
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Sascha Luck [ml] <apwg at c4inet.net> wrote: > On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 01:28:39PM +0200, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote: > >> Apparently, my point was not very reader friendly, so I'll try again: >> Routing-wise, someone with 64 billion billion billion addresses, have >> about >> 16 billion billion ways to route the entire IPv4 internet, within the >> address space constraints of a /32 allocation. >> > > In theory, yes. But the policy currently contradicts itself to an > extent. > > Section 3.8 of ripe-641 clearly states: "In IPv6 address policy, > the goal of aggregation is considered to be the most important." > ss3.4 and 3.5 bear that out also. > > Yet, s5.1.2 seems to exclude aggregation as a valid reason for an > allocation. The Proposal merely attempts to remove this > contradiction. Well, yes, that's why I first wrote "This change makes sense … I support it". -- Jan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150512/5be461fa/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Policy Proposal (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-03 New Policy Proposal (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]