Re: Routing table size?

[masataka ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>]

Ray;

> There is a global ipv6 policy dicussion list hosted by APNIC.
>
> http://www.apnic.net/community/lists/index.html

Thanks for the pointer.

But, having read recent posts to the ML, I have got an impression
that the mailing list is for discussion on the current IPv6
specification as is, thus ignoring the problem of routing table
size.

Or, is the mailing list an appropriate place to discuss how to
modify IPv6 or, at least, ask opinions on possible modifications
on IPv6?

							Masataka Ohta
> Ray
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: masataka ohta [mailto:mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp] 
> > Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 8:15 AM
> > To: Ray Plzak
> > Cc: multi6@ops.ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: Routing table size?
> >
> >
> > Ray;
> >
> >
> > > > Not if the RIRs don't change their policies.
> > >
> > > Policies in the RIR service regions are made by the 
> >
> > operators and users
> >
> > > of the Internet as well as anyone else that is interested in IP
> > > addressing, routing, and related issues, not by RIR staffs or their
> > > Boards.  If you feel that a particular allocation policy is 
> >
> > not correct,
> >
> > > then I suggest that you participate in the RIR forum in the 
> >
> > area where
> >
> > > you are located.  Mail lists are open, there is no qualification to
> > > join.
> >
> > Should we join mailing lists of all the RIRs and expect their
> > policies become magically consistent?
> >
> > Or can we expect some central place (if ICANN is hopeless, RIPE is
> > fine for me) for the discussion?
> >
> > 							Masataka Ohta