Hello,

If I'm an IXP (don't need the prefix to show up in the "global routing
table") and would like a /96 please...
... then I'd have no problem with that statement.
Admitted, not many will want to justify a longer prefix ....

If clarification can be added without blowing or restricting things,
that's of course welcome.

Regards,
Frank

PS: right to use only the new list name now?



On 1/30/2007 11:22 AM, Andrew Alston wrote:
>
> Hi Vincent,
>
> I’m ok with all of this except for the following:
>
> * The intial provider independent assignment size to an end-site
> should be a /48, or a shorter/longer prefix if the end-site can
> justify it.
>
> I’m happy with /48s, I’m even happier with bigger blocks, but there
> should **NEVER** be a situation where the block is smaller than this
> in the global routing tables. If the blocks can ever be smaller than
> /48 in size it is going to create major BGP filtering headaches.
>
> Can this wording be clarified?
>
> Many Thanks
>
> Andrew Alston
>
> TENET – Chief Technology Officer
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> resource-policy mailing list
> resource-policy@afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/resource-policy
>   



_______________________________________________
resource-policy mailing list
resource-policy@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/resource-policy

Reply via email to