<<< Chronological >>> Author Index    Subject Index <<< Threads >>>

Re: Changes to PI Policy?

  • To: Denesh Bhabuta < >
  • From: Gert Doering < >
  • Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 13:11:19 +0200

Hi,

On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 03:53:51PM +0100, Denesh Bhabuta wrote:
> > The concept of PI space is definitely not broken. There is a
> 
> The concept is not broken - the policy is - and it is the policy (and the 
> associated assignment policy) that needs fixing.

Well, my statement was meant to spur discussion, which it does.

The thing that's broken about (routeable) PI is that it brings benefit and 
independence to the end user, but puts the costs for it on everybody else,
by forcing another route into the global table.

I can see the need for some specific uses of PI:

 - DNS root servers that can't be renumbered without changing configuration
   on ALL client name servers out there

 - internal VPN links between companies that need to be unique, but 
   are not meant to be visible globally

For "hook up to your ISP" addresses, I see PI as a failure of the past.  It
doesn't scale.  No matter what assignment policy you devise, you will either
collide with PA policy ("what, I can't get a /24 PA?  Then get me a /24 PI!")
or with routing ("what, I can't get the /29 PI routed?  What good is it?").

But maybe someone more clever than I can come up with a PI policy that
will scale, will not be unfair to some potential users, and will not 
collide with PA policy or global routing.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  58512  (58485)

SpaceNet AG                 Mail: netmaster@localhost
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14   Tel : +49-89-32356-0
80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-299





  • Post To The List:
<<< Chronological >>> Author    Subject <<< Threads >>>