[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: RIR bashing, was: Routing table size?

To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Subject: Re: RIR bashing, was: Routing table size?
From: masataka ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 22:00:15 +0900
Cc: Ray Plzak <plzak@arin.net>, multi6@ops.ietf.org
In-reply-to: <2204C402-FCB2-11D7-B291-00039388672E@muada.com>
References: <2204C402-FCB2-11D7-B291-00039388672E@muada.com>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)

Iljitsch;

Giving out /32s ONLY in IPv6 and /20s mostly in IPv4 isn't a good policy. Sometimes people need to be globally visible without the need for such a large block, and the largest ISPs burn through them fast enough to warrant giving them much larger blocks.

Large? How large?

The only real requirement is global visibility and, with IPv4 today, it is granted to an ISP with multiple external connectivities, which is not necessarily the case with multi6.

Masataka Ohta

Follow-Ups:
- Re: RIR bashing, was: Routing table size?
  - From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>

References:
- Re: RIR bashing, was: Routing table size?
  - From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>

Prev by Date: Re: Routing table size?
Next by Date: Re: RIR bashing, was: Routing table size?
Previous by thread: Re: RIR bashing, was: Routing table size?
Next by thread: Re: RIR bashing, was: Routing table size?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread