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

[Max Tulyev president@localhost]

Per Heldal wrote:

> What the immediate upstream may think would be irrelevant. *If* there is
> *ever* consensus within the RIPE community to have the NCC reclaim
> blocks, there would have to be mechanisms in place to enforce the
> decision. That would most probably involve a quarantine period for
> reclaimed prefixes during which transit providers in the region would be
> asked to black-hole the space. 

No, not black-hole! Just don't accept!
Because of there will be another period of "de-black-holing" ;) and so on...

> It only takes a handful of large transit providers to black-hole a
> prefix to render that address-block useless.

Again, if there is no inetnum/as/roure objects, "large transit
providers" just drop this because of RR DB filters.

This also true for those who "transmit pirate signal into the Matrix" ;)
using fake IPs and ASes.

> 
> The question isn't if it can be done or not, but whether the RIPE
> community as a whole really wants such a scheme to be implemented.
> 

I think it must be done. Not only because of this case, but also for
blocking unauthorized announces.

-- 
WBR,
Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@localhost)