On 02.09.2024 15:19, Marco Schmidt wrote:
Regarding Radu’s questions about the numbers, I can clarify that all requests for multiple /48s are for different end sites of the same organisation. If a request would justify the need for more /64 subnets at a single end site than could fit in one /48, the RIPE NCC would issue a single prefix that provides sufficient space for that end site.
Thank you, Marco, I was suspecting it is that way since the current policy has no max limit just minimum size of /48. So, this adds to the multiple definitions of the same terms argument, aggregation would happen in the database not in the routing tables. I see no benefit in that, they are deaggregated now, they would be deaggregated then, it is better to have them documented as separate End Sites to reflect that. Radu