> >> which again give us some sort of aggregation... is this something we > >> want? (althought it would fit us, where I work, perfectly since we would > >> get almost all the space we need quite easy:-)
> > I would agree with Tony that aggregation of ULA-G space should be allowed. > > I know there are many others who disagree, but IMO mutually assured > > destruction isn't called for here. As long as we have an expectation that > > routes will be filtered, and have the ability to easily do so, I don't > > think it matters whether we have lots of non-aggregated routes or fewer > > aggregated ones... > I'd also add a heretical comment: if they agggregate, it doesn't *matter* if > they leak. In fact, they *will* leak up to the point where they hit a > shorter filter. That's physics. ok, intentional unaggregatability is out. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
