Re: [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)

[Dmitry Kiselev dmitry@localhost]

On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 11:02:27AM +0200, Erich Hohermuth wrote:

> > >    http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-05.html
> > >
> > > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to
> > > address-policy-wg@localhost before 26 September 2006.
> 
> The proposal make sense but we have to look deeper into the problem of
> increase the prefixes. If someone ask for multihoming with PI Space, it
> makes sense that we assign a size which will work with the current
> filtering policies. But maybe we have to change the policy about PI
> Space in general ? The question is, which "problems" do we rate as a
> higher risk; waste of ip space, amount of prefixes, reach ability of a
> subnet. What do you think ?


On my practice multihoming PI users ask one more prefix each time
the previous one exhausted. Its coused by difficults while receiving
one large enough PI subnet. Instead of becoming LIR and have no
problems with PA, such users save money and got a couple of small
PIs for a space solution... Yeah, here, in xUSSR, it is common
practice. :(

As IPv4 PI qustion rised again, in my opinion, we have think
about reasonable and clear limits for maximum PI assignment size
to reduce described above problem and coused routing table impact.


-- 
Dmitry Kiselev