On Thu, 28 Sep 2006, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
Hi Wilfried,
Hi All,
Thanks again for your inputs.
I fully understand your point, but you need to balance it with being temporary. We are not allocating this space for ever.
Imho, that's a risky thing to say. :-)) Afaik, experiments can be extended, and then extended, and later extended a bit more...
Also it is not clear to me that a few hundreds of extras /32 will make a difference in terms of lifetime, specially having in a few years alternative technical solutions (again we are doing a temporary thing).
Out of plain curiosity: are really those alternatives bound to happen in say 5-10 years?
On the other way around, what operators do to filter or not, is not our problem (as RIPE community), and we can't do nothing against that, so, do you really think it make sense to arrange a policy that may work only in some networks ? Let's be realistic !
Here i fully agree with Wilfried! If operator A is filtering out PI network B, then customer C (which is paying operator A) is entitled to complain and "suggest" operator A to correct its filtering (or he can always find a new operator, with a better customer needs' focus!)
One possibility will be to allocate /48 but keep reserved the remaining /32. If the applicant justify that the /48 is getting filtered, then he may opt to justify to obtain the /32. Is this a possible compromise solution ?
A lot more reasonable yes, but if he needs an upgrade from /48 -> /40 he should get a /40, not immediately a /32. :-)
Regards, Jordi
Regards, ./Carlos -------------- Wide Area Network (WAN) Workgroup, CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional http://www.fccn.pt "Internet is just routes (196663/675), naming (millions) and... people!"