Re: Routing table size?

To: Ray Plzak <plzak@arin.net>
Subject: Re: Routing table size?
From: masataka ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 19:47:15 +0900
Cc: multi6@ops.ietf.org
In-reply-to: <000401c39180$76ad34d0$728888c0@arin.net>
References: <000401c39180$76ad34d0$728888c0@arin.net>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)

Ray;

I'd like to confirm your points.

The policy can only be for existing protocols/technology.


It is a statement for RIRs, because it is RIRs, not IETF, which
considers the policy for existing protocols/technology.

It doesn't
hurt to consider what an allocation policy should be when considering a
new or revised protocol.


It is a statement for multi6, because it is multi6, not RIRs, which is
considering the new or revised protocol.

Right?

Masataka Ohta

References:
- RE: Routing table size?
  - From: "Ray Plzak" <plzak@arin.net>