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

[Nick Hilliard nick@localhost]

> Even if you can have a crystal ball that predicts your future addressing 
> requirements for arbitrary amounts of time into the future, this still 
> has a 1:1 ratio of end user organization to routing prefix and every 
> flap of that prefix has to get propagated globally.
Then we're stuck with a situation where on the one hand, RIPE membership 
is pressing for the continuation of a non-scalable addressing policy out 
of commercial necessity, but on the other, there are no real policy 
disincentives to discourage end-users from this harmful practice.
This is quite an absurd situation, really.

This policy inconsistency needs to be fixed urgently.  And the most 
appropriate way of doing it is to apply both an initial and recurring 
charge to PI assignments.  This is a reasonable system which will deal 
with not only the financial reality that IRRs cost money to run, but 
will also act as a much-needed disincentive to applying for PI space.
Nick