Re: Bash IETF, not RIRs

[Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

>> Disagree. A good policy would be making the best of the situation 
>> we're
>> in today. The current RIR IPv6 allocation policy doesn't do that as it
>> allows for a routing table of 520 million /32 entries, which is more
>> than what we can realistically expect routers to handle in the future.
>
> I don't understand what you are suggesting, could you be more explicit 
> about
> what do you consider that the IPv6 allocation policy should be?
>
> (Sorry if this is OT, perhaps we could move the thread to globalv6, 
> chairs?)

<as chair>

Well, the discussion that the RIRs have come up with a faulty policy 
should. As Ray pointed out, the RIRs crates no policy. It's created on 
globalv6 and should go there. Mostly as feedback to the people 
discussing the policy. As for the routing table size discussion, I 
think that is ok.


- - kurtis -

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.2

iQA/AwUBP4weeKarNKXTPFCVEQLsqwCfYN38zWjRhQdHW51QB0JuiKqpEAUAoMfi
ERveu7aTK0NtdEMUiMx+rbQt
=qNob
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----