[ppml] 2005-1 and/or Multi6

[Lea Roberts]

Daniel -

well, perhaps 'all PI users as "mud"' is a good characterization.

what I was thinking of as I wrote SWAMPv6 is that even tho the PI prefixes
would be allocated by ARIN out of a single block, they would still be
individual routes.  They would consume a RIB slot and not be aggregatable.
You could just as easily say that SWAMPv4 was all allocated out of 192/8,
but it is still a large collection of /24 routes that need to be carried
throughout the DFZ.  So, that's my definition of "swamp" - a collection of
long-prefix, non-aggregatable routes.				/Lea

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, Daniel Roesen wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 11:05:16AM -0700, Michel Py wrote:
> > > or would this policy just create SWAMPv6?
> >
> > This policy would create SWAMPv6. SWAMPv6 will be more difficult to
> > clean than SWAMPv4, for two reasons:
>
> Can anyone please define "swamp"? What does the collection of PI
> prefixes differ in compared to the collection of PA aggregate prefixes
> other than probably prefix length?
>
> "Swamp" was the organisational chaos left from the early IPv4 phase.
> I don't see how a /32 set aside by each RIR for /48 PI prefixes can be
> called "swamp" unless you define all PI users as "mud". :-)
>
>
> Best regards,
> Daniel
>
> --
> CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
>