Hi Jerzy, Thanks for your input. I understand your point, however I think it belongs to a different discussion and it is actually a more complex topic because the implications in terms of traffic engineering current practices, routing table slots, etc. I just "copied and pasted" that part from the actual requirements. I will suggest that we go step by step, and if we want to move on with the 200 sites removal, don't ask for many more changes now (at least not in the same policy proposal). So the question is even if what you are suggesting is not part of the actual policy proposal, do you agree to move on with the actual text ? Regards, Jordi
De: Jerzy Pawlus <Jerzy.Pawlus@cyf-kr.edu.pl> Responder a: <address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net> Fecha: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 10:25:59 +0100 (MET) Para: "address-policy-wg@ripe.net" <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Asunto: [address-policy-wg] Comments on proposed IPv6 Initial Allocation criteria
Hi,
The move towards removal of 200 assignments is a good one. However there is one thing which bothers me. If I read the 5.1.1. correctly the LIR must advertise the allocated block as a single prefix. So any LIR, unless it is a big one, will be limited to only one routing policy. But there are LIRs which hold more than one AS number and they will be left with nothing to advertise under the second and subsequent AS numbers.
So I would propose either to remove this limitation or allow more than one /32 allocation per LIR with more than one AS number.
Regards,
Jurek
********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.