RE: [6bone] RE: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] Update on IPv6 filter recommendation
Carlos,
Carlos Morgado wrote: Yes, that is indeed one scenario. But consider the extreme case of an operator which only sells transits to multihomed customers who already have their own address.
Can you come with a real example? More, can you come up with a real example that has applied for space and has been denied the prefix? On paper, this is an issue but policies are not on planning on every possible hypothetical case. Michel.
On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 08:06:40AM -0700, Michel Py wrote:
Carlos,
Carlos Morgado wrote: Yes, that is indeed one scenario. But consider the extreme case of an operator which only sells transits to multihomed customers who already have their own address.
Can you come with a real example? More, can you come up with a real example that has applied for space and has been denied the prefix?
I've exposed this problem to RIPE with details about the network, size of transited and allocated ipv4 space and RIPE's reply was if it doesn't fit the policy it won't get approved. After some adding up of current ipv4 space usage I came to the conclusion without some very wishfull thinking and extremly colourfull planing the submited plan wouldn't reach the 200 /48 requisites. So, I'm under the category - never submited a plan cause it wouldn't be aproved. -- Carlos Morgado <chbm@cprm.net> - Internet Engineering - Phone +351 214146594 GPG key: 0x75E451E2 FP: B98B 222B F276 18C0 266B 599D 93A1 A3FB 75E4 51E2 The views expressed above do not bind my employer.
participants (2)
-
Carlos Morgado -
Michel Py