RE: [address-policy-wg] RIPE Access Policy Change Request to allow allocations to critical infrastructure

["Daniel Monteith" <]

/24 if only :) I believe currently its the LIR initial allocation boundary that's the minimum guaranteed not to be filtered. I would welcome a move by the ISP's (mainly a couple of tier 1's) to relax this so that BGP multihoming for the small people becomes easier and more efficient. I am sure we are getting to the stage when route table size is not so much of an issue anymore. 

Cheers

Dan

-----Original Message-----
From: Andre Chapuis [
	    
	    
]
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 3:43 PM
To: Daniel Karrenberg; address-policy-wg@localhost
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] RIPE Access Policy Change Request to
allow allocations to critical infrastructure


Agreed,
And what about defining an address-range where every ISP opens its filter up to /29 (as an example) ? This would deal with both anycast and address-space conservation.
Let's show that we (as ISPs) are not bound to the /24 forever !

André

At 10:23 12.01.2004, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:

>This discussion is *not* about address policy, 
>it really is about ** routing policy! **  
>The goal is to get prefixes propagated.  
>They could live in any odd part of the address space!
>
>Routing policy is made by ISPs. (period)
>
>In order to provide hints to ISPs making such policy I have previolusly
>proposed a *registry* for "special" prefixes with some general
>categories like:
>
>        - root server
>        - TLD server
>        - second level name server
>        - internet search engine
>        - other important prefix (see remarks section ;-)
>        - ....
>
>Such a registry could be provided by the RIRs and used by the ISPs when
>defining and implementing their routing policy.  The art here is to
>design the categories and to decide which ones can be policed.  It is
>easy to determine and to check regularly if a prefix contains name
>servers for instance.  Other categories should be "self-declaration". 
>ISPs can then decide if and how to use such a registry. 
>
>Is this something that provides added value to ISPs?
>Is it something that is useful for those using such prefixes?
>
>Daniel
>
>
>PS: If getting any address space at all is a problem for these applications, 
>this needs to be addressed.  Maybe it is already addressed by adjusting
>the "initial" usage requirements back to "nil" or some reasonable low level and
>reducing the initial allocation size.
>
>This is a different discussion which belongs here, but I do not reeally follow
>it anymore, so pardon me if I just assume it is moving along.

--------------------------------------------------------
Andre Chapuis
IP+ Backbone Engineering AS3303
Swisscom Enterprise Solutions Ltd
Genfergasse 14, CH-3050 Bern
+41 31 893 89 61
chapuis@localhost
CCIE #6023
--------------------------------------------------------