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

RE: Routing table size?



Ohta-san,

This list is the appropriate place to ask questions about current policy
as well as suggest changes to existing policy or even propose new
policy.

Ray

> -----Original Message-----
> From: masataka ohta [mailto:mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp] 
> Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 11:22 AM
> To: Ray Plzak
> Cc: multi6@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Routing table size?
> 
> 
> 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
> >>
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
>