Just another note on clashes – any company that deals with constant and frequent merges and acquisitions will know – uniqueness is paramount – unless you want integration headaches that will cause you weeks of sleepness nights.
And when you’re doing 3 or 4 M&A’s a year – this is very very very important Andrew From: spring <spring-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Nick Hilliard <n...@foobar.org> Date: Monday, 2 September 2019 at 16:28 To: Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> Cc: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper....@dmarc.ietf.org>, SPRING WG List <spring@ietf.org>, "6...@ietf.org" <6...@ietf.org>, Mark Smith <markzzzsm...@gmail.com>, Rob Shakir <ro...@google.com>, Fernando Gont <fg...@si6networks.com> Subject: Re: [spring] Beyond SRv6. Robert Raszuk wrote on 02/09/2019 12:49: > Yes you are 100% correct. > > The decision to inject any prefix into someone's IGP (or BGP) is a local > operator's decision. It is, and most operators take pains to avoid injecting shared addressing resources into their routing domains. These days it usually relates to policy, but that policy is rooted in the painful reality that building infrastructure intended for second or third party tenancy on the basis of overlapping number resources is something that can and will cause catastrophic architectural problems once clashes occur. So again, I suggest that if it's the intention for the draft to proceed, the authors will need to reach out to RIR policy working groups because the additional number resource requirements required do not fit in with the current ipv6 resource assignment and allocation policies currently in place. Nick _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring>
_______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
