> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 08:10:20PM +0200, Havard Eidnes wrote: >>global routing system, as each individual sub-organization's route >>will need to be carried globally, and there's no possibility for >>route aggregation. I'm hesitating a little to find an appropriate >>characterization of what would happen if such pratices became very >>widespread, but I'm sure it certainly isn't positive for the >>sustainability of the network. >> >>Regretfully, noone has come up with any sort of economic (the only >>one which works...) dis-incentive countering such behaviour, so >>we'll end up by muddling along. > > In the context of global IPv4 expiration, RIPE policy can't > prevent de-aggregation down to /24 (or longer) any more than King > Knut was able to order the tide back out.
I know, but the perspective needed to be put forward. >>BTW, this argument is address-family independent... > > ripe-641 strongly discourages ipv6 de-aggregation (and there is no > good argument for it either) but the sheer potential size of the > routing table will become a problem at some stage. That will have to > be solved eventually but that is not likely to be > on this ML.. ;) Yup. Regards, - Håvard
